omni_block_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the fuzzy-match behavior, the sources searched, and the exact composition of results (exact matches, aliases, unmapped 1.20 names). It does not explicitly state read-only status or error behavior, but the search framing makes the lack of side effects reasonable to assume.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence establishes action and scope; the second precisely defines output categories. Every clause contributes useful information for invoking or interpreting the tool.

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?

The description explains the result categories but omits the output record structure, empty-result behavior, and how 'limit' is applied. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks some details needed to fully interpret or trust the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It hints at the 'kind' parameter by mentioning '198 blocks / 187 items', and 'Fuzzy search' implies the semantics of 'query', but it does not explain 'limit' or the default behavior of 'kind'.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Fuzzy search') and identifies the resource ('1.8 registry... and the alias table'), then enumerates the three result categories. This makes the tool's function unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from sibling translation tools such as omni_block_translate and omni_item_translate.

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 implies the tool is for discovering block/item names and their 1.8 status, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over the translate siblings. It provides no exclusions or alternative routing, so the intended usage context must be inferred.

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