Search the fantasy catalog

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results include 'facts, relations, and provenance' and explicitly states it never modifies the catalog, reinforcing the read-only nature. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or performance details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral context. No verbose or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate by detailing parameter usage and result structure. It does neither, leaving significant gaps for a search tool with multiple parameters and sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (query, kinds, maxResults). Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot effectively use the input schema to formulate correct queries.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'Searches' and specifies the resource as 'canonical fantasy entity cards stored in the managed catalog'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'get_fantasy_entity' (single entity retrieval) and 'trace_fantasy_relations' (relation tracing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that the tool is for searching and returning multiple results, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_fantasy_entity' or 'trace_fantasy_relations'. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.