Search Dota 2 entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which the description complements by detailing that it returns results that may require user confirmation. There is no contradiction. The description adds behavioral context about requiring user confirmation for multiple candidates and its role as a precursor to detail tools, going slightly beyond annotation coverage. A near-perfect score is warranted as it adds value without contradiction.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundant wording. It uses the available space efficiently.

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 output schema exists (covering return format) and annotations adequately describe core behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description is complete for the tool's complexity. It specifies the search source, when to use it, and a key caveat (user confirmation). Nothing essential is missing.

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 67%, meaning two of three parameters have descriptions in the schema: 'query' is described as 'Human-readable name or alias' and 'types' as 'Optional entity type filter.' The description adds general context around parameter usage (e.g., the intent of the tool), but is somewhat redundant with schema-level descriptions. With moderate schema coverage, the description provides minimal extra detail, so a 4 is 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?

The description clearly states it searches Liquipedia for Dota 2 tournaments, teams, or players, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Liquipedia for Dota 2 entities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is to be used before a 'detail tool' when an exact title is unknown, effectively differentiating from the get_dota2_* tools that retrieve specific entities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before a detail tool when an exact canonical title is not already known') and implies when not to use (when the exact title is known, use a detail tool instead). It also warns that multiple candidates require user confirmation, providing clear context for decision-making.

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