Search compendiums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral nuances beyond annotations: it states that every word of the query must appear in the name, descriptions are not searched, exact matches come first, and filters may be estimates unless the adapter has an index. This adds meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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 focused paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and scope, then details the filtering caveats and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 complexity (many filter parameters) and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: scope, matching rules, filter limitations, and alternatives. It does not describe the return format or result ordering beyond exact matches first, but the limit parameter is in the schema. This is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the behavior of the filters (adapter dependence, estimate vs real values, ignored filters) which is not fully captured in the schema. It also reiterates the query matching rule, but that is already in the schema, so the added semantics are moderate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search the names of compendium entries' and immediately distinguishes from siblings by excluding scene compendiums and pointing to alternatives like list-creatures-by-criteria and get-compendium-item. It also clarifies the scope (all compendiums except scene compendiums), making it unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For accurate filtering use list-creatures-by-criteria, and inspect single entries with get-compendium-item.' It also explains the limitation of the filter behavior based on the active game system adapter, so an agent knows when this tool is appropriate and when to defer to a sibling.

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