Search castles by name

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses behavior: accent/case-insensitive substring matching, result ordering (best-match-then-fame), output fields (coordinates, century, fame rank, links), and retry advice. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or mutability, but as a search tool it is sufficiently transparent.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: first states the core action, second details optional filters, third describes result format and advice. No redundant information, well front-loaded.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the search behavior, optional filters, result fields, and retry advice. It is complete for a search tool, though it could mention pagination or default limit behavior more explicitly (but limit is in schema).

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that query matching is accent/case-insensitive substring and that country accepts name or ISO code. It also explains default limit behavior and result ordering, which the schema lacks.

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 clearly states the tool searches the atlas's 2,400 castles by name with optional filters, using a specific verb 'search' and resource 'castles'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'castles_near' (likely location-based) and 'get_castle' (single item) by focusing on name-based substring search.

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 usage for name-based searching and provides a retry hint for no matches, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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