Search by property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating that each hit reports which field and value matched, and that the tool only searches structured properties, not event text. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, it is a search tool with no side effects implied, and the behavioral detail is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds distinct value: what it searches, when to use it, and what the result reports. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, usage guidance, and hit structure. It could be more explicit about the overall return shape, but it sufficiently covers the key aspects for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context with property examples and hit reporting, but does not go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It reinforces field restrictions but does not add new parameter semantics.

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 structured properties of objects, listing specific examples like goal, race, positions, affiliations, and worshipped deities. It explicitly contrasts with name or event text searches, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_objects and search_events.

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?

It explicitly states that property values never appear in events and that this is the only tool that finds them, giving a clear when-to-use context. It implies alternatives for names or event text but does not name the sibling tools directly, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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