Identify Minifigure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the catalog size (18,000+) and matching behavior ('best matches'), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. For a search/identification tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place by explaining functionality and providing concrete examples, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidelines from core description.

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 (search/identification across large catalog) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'best matches' means, how results are returned, pagination, error cases, or performance characteristics. The description should provide more operational context for effective use.

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%, providing good documentation for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the parameter usage through examples ('colors, accessories, theme, character clues'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format constraints or interaction effects between parameters.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('identify', 'get the best matches') and resources ('LEGO minifigure', '18,000+ minifig catalog'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on identification from textual descriptions rather than lookup by ID (lookup_minifigure) or theme filtering (get_theme_minifigures).

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 usage through examples ('e.g. green ninja with golden swords') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_minifigures or get_theme_minifigures. It provides context for input format but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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