search_restrictions

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the patch-scoped filtering and the types of restrictions, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination defaults or version handling. This is consistent with the baseline for tools with good annotation coverage.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and scope without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 search tool with strong annotations and fully described parameters, the description is sufficient. It clearly explains the purpose and scope, though it does not elaborate on output format or edge-case behavior. Given no output schema and a simple parameter set, this is adequately 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, query, version), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-related meaning beyond the patch scoping implied by 'one retail patch'. It does not elaborate on limit or query semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 finds APIs carrying specific restriction types (combat, secret-value, taint, secure-code, unit-aura) within a retail patch. The verb 'Find' plus the resource 'APIs carrying restrictions' is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling search_api and lookup_api tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when searching for restricted APIs in a patch) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It implies usage without naming other tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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