Search the in-game Lua API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses valuable behavioral information: the search covers specific API categories and results include full argument and return signatures. It does not mention whether the search is read-only or any limitations, but for a search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, an illustrative second sentence with concrete examples, and a practical usage directive. No redundant information; every sentence contributes meaning.

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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and rich sibling set, the description covers the tool's scope, result contents, and usage. It could go further by explicitly stating that events/types are handled by sibling tools, but the enumeration of function categories already implies this distinction.

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?

The schema already describes query, flavor, and namespace well. The description adds useful context about API families, but it does not elaborate on the limit parameter, which remains undocumented. With 75% schema coverage, the description provides some extra meaning but does not fully close the gap for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search World of Warcraft's in-game Lua API'. It further distinguishes from siblings by enumerating the covered API types (namespaced functions, legacy globals, widget methods) and by noting that it returns argument and return signatures. This clearly identifies it as the function search tool versus event/type search siblings.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'Use this before writing any addon code that calls the game.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or point to alternatives like wow_api_event_search or wow_api_type_search, so it falls short of full 5.

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