search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful detail beyond the schema: results include frontend web URLs. However, it omits other key traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, and pagination behavior (though the schema includes limit/offset parameters).

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 brief sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource scope. The second sentence efficiently adds the return format detail. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool is moderately complex (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), and the description partially compensates by noting web URL results. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, leaving gaps that an agent would need to fill from the schema or external context.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, format hints, or defaults beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Search across Open5e resources (spells, monsters, etc.) with filters.' This clearly conveys the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from generic list/get siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'rag_search' or clarify when to prefer one search tool over the other.

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 mentions search supports filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rag_search', 'list', or 'get'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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