Search ESI operations

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the search-mode behavior and discovery positioning, but doesn't describe the output shape or clarify that results are operation metadata rather than live game data.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and search dimensions are front-loaded, and 'Start here...' adds useful routing guidance that earns its place.

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?

For a simple optional-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description covers what it finds and how to search. The only notable gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return format or that the tool returns operation metadata rather than actual game data, but the tool's purpose is still clear enough for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already describes tag, query, and authenticated; the description reinforces these by mapping them to natural-language keywords, exact tag, and authentication requirement. It doesn't mention `limit`, but the schema provides a default and min/max, making it sufficiently clear.

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 a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('read-only EVE Online ESI operations'), and three explicit search dimensions (keywords, tag, authentication requirement). This distinguishes it from the get/call siblings and makes the tool's role obvious.

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?

'Start here when choosing which game data to retrieve' gives clear context and positioning as the discovery step. It does not explicitly name get_esi_operation or call_esi as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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