search_waypoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format, the meaning of 'chat_link' (including example), and a special status condition ('index_warming'). However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the search is case-sensitive, though the provided details are above average.

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?

Description is three concise sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second details return structure, third explains chat_link and status. No fluff, front-loaded with key 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it does, what it returns, how to use results, and a special edge case (index_warming). It could detail partial matching behavior more, but is largely complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'name' is a partial name and that the tool returns matches. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could specify case-sensitivity or matching rules. Overall, it sufficiently clarifies the parameter's role.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'find GW2 waypoint and landmark (point of interest) chat codes and map locations by (partial) name'. It specifies a specific verb ('find'), resource ('waypoints and landmarks'), and method ('by (partial) name'), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_skills or search_items.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or compare with other search tools. Some context is provided via the 'index_warming' status, but without clear usage boundaries, the agent lacks decision support.

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