Search character items

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it explains the return format (id, name, type, description, adapter details), behavior for categories (no categories -> none, unknown refused with valid ones), and case-insensitive query. This exceeds annotation coverage, so a 4 is warranted.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by return details and category caveats. Each sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly tightened. No fluff or repetition.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: search scope, return contents, type variants, category behavior, and query case-sensitivity. It does not specify pagination beyond the schema's limit, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the semantics of 'type' (how action/effect differ) and category behavior (refusal with valid ones), and clarifies that omitting query returns all items. This adds value above the schema, justifying a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb 'search' and resource 'character items', and immediately clarifies the scope ('inside one actor instead of loading all of it'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic list operations and mentions variants (actions/effects) that differentiate it from sibling tools like get-character or list-characters.

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 states when to use it ('when you need to find specific items within an actor without loading the entire entity') and implicitly contrasts with loading all items. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of siblings like get-character and list-characters is implied. A minor gap is lack of explicit exclusion for cases like searching across actors or compendiums.

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