search_drops

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

The description explains the core behavior (searching and displaying drop sources) but lacks details on non-obvious traits like rate limits, authentication, or result ordering. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is minimally adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outputs. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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 description covers the main output aspects (sources and chances) but does not explain result format, pagination, or error handling. Given the lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, more detail would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional context beyond what the schema provides for parameters like 'queries', 'limit', and 'min_chance'. The description's mention of sources and chances aligns with the result, not parameter semantics.

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 function: searching drop tables for items and showing sources with drop chances. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'relic_drops' by covering multiple source types (relics, missions, enemies).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description implies a general search use case but does not specify when not to use it or provide context for choosing among siblings.

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