DM20 Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the search methodology (keyword expansion with D&D synonyms, TF-IDF scoring) and data sources (indexed PDF/Markdown), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens with no results.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement, technical details, examples, and parameter sections. The examples are helpful but slightly lengthy. Every sentence adds value, though the tool could be slightly more concise by integrating the default limit mention into the main 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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: explains methodology, sources, and includes examples. The main gap is lack of output format details beyond 'formatted search results grouped by source' - more specificity about result structure would help.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies 'query' accepts natural language questions (implied in schema's 'natural language question' description) and mentions the default limit of 10 (already in schema). No additional parameter insights are provided.

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: 'Ask a natural language question across all your rulebooks' with specific details about keyword expansion and TF-IDF scoring. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'search_rules' by emphasizing natural language processing across multiple sources (PDF and Markdown).

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 provides explicit usage guidance with five concrete examples showing typical query patterns. It implicitly distinguishes from other search tools by focusing on natural language questions rather than structured searches, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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