search_ro_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: prioritization of Pre-Renewal context (~Episode 13.2) and that each result includes server, estimated era, and a Tenarius verification flag. It does not cover failure modes or authentication, but for a read-only search tool this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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: two sentences for context and an Args block. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema, the description covers sources, prioritization, output fields, and parameter meaning. It mentions the Tenarius verification aspect, which adds domain context. No significant gaps remain.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: query with concrete examples ('Professor skills', 'Assassin Cross', 'MVP Amon Ra') and limit as 'Resultados por fuente (1-10)' with a clear range and unit. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter semantics excellent.

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 purpose: 'Busca información de Ragnarok Online en wikis de referencia' with a specific verb ('Busca') and resource (RO reference wikis). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming specific wikis (iRO Wiki, Fandom) and mentioning the Pre-Renewal prioritization, which is unique among related tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need RO reference wiki results with Pre-Renewal priority. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_wiki or search_ro_web, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance. This is a minor gap.

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