horizon_torn_getFactionSearch

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Search factions' without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though key parameter exists), rate limits, pagination behavior (limit/offset present), or whether the operation is read-only. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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?

Single sentence, no filler. Front-loaded with verb+resource. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail that could be included without harming conciseness. Still, it's efficient and to the point.

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 tool complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return format, pagination, filter details (though schema does), or search semantics (partial match, case sensitivity). For a search tool, key context like result set nature is missing. Completeness is low.

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 coverage is 71% (5/7 parameters described). The description adds 'by name or other criteria', aligning with the 'name' parameter and hinting at 'filters'. Beyond this, it doesn't explain 'limit', 'offset', or other parameters beyond what schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3; description adds marginal value.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search factions by name or other criteria', specifying a distinct action (search) and resource (factions). This differentiates it from sibling tools like getFactionBasicInformation or getFactionLookup, which retrieve specific entities rather than search. The verb 'Search' and resource 'factions' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't clarify that one should use this tool when they want to find factions by name or filter criteria, as opposed to using getFactionLookup for known IDs. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or competing tools.

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