search_samp_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden. It only states that the tool searches two named sources; it does not disclose result format, pagination, failure modes, freshness, or whether the search is live or cached. 'Search' implies read-only behavior, but little else is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action, target sources, and purpose with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 one-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally viable, but the lack of an output schema and annotations leaves uncertainty about return values and limitations. The description does not explain how results are presented or how this search differs from other search 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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'query' parameter is already documented as 'Search keywords'. The description adds only that results target official SAMP Wiki and Forum Archive content, which is useful but does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Search') and a specific resource ('official SAMP Wiki and Forum Archive') for a defined purpose ('information/examples'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like web_search or search_pawn_script, but the named resource makes the scope reasonably distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as web_search, search_pawn_script, or search_server_log. The description implies it is for SAMP-related external documentation, but it never states exclusions or selection criteria.

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