search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the result scope ('matching types from all namespaces') and says nothing about pagination behavior via limit, result ordering/ranking, or whether the underlying cache (a sibling is refresh_cache) can make results stale.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the return summary. Appropriately sized for a simple search 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more: it summarizes the return as 'matching types' but never says what a result contains (name, namespace, signature) or how to page through results. Adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent with no other structured guidance.

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 query, kind, and limit are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Dalamud API documentation) with the mechanism (by keyword), so an agent knows it is a lookup tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_type, list_enums, or list_namespaces, which would have made the boundary explicit.

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 phrase 'by keyword' implies discovery-style usage versus the exact-lookup siblings (get_type, get_namespace), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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