search_enemies

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

The description discloses the case-insensitive matching behavior, which goes beyond the simple schema parameter description. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or behavior on no matches. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries a greater burden, but it only partially fulfills it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral detail, exemplifying ideal conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the search target (enemies), the field (name), and the matching behavior (case-insensitive). While it does not explain the return structure, that is a minor gap for a basic search operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, but the tool description adds meaning by clarifying that the search is by name and is case-insensitive. This provides context beyond the schema's generic 'search term' description, enhancing the parameter's semantic understanding.

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: 'Search enemies by name' identifies the verb (search), resource (enemies), and field (name). The added detail 'case-insensitive' distinguishes it from potential sibling search tools and provides a precise scope.

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 implies usage for searching enemies by name, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like search_troops or search_actors. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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