search_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It mentions filtering capability but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (pagination, format), or any rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of objects, count, detailed records), how results are structured, or any limitations. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context is needed for effective tool use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'filters' which aligns with parameters like id_min/id_max and name_contains, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('game database'), and provides examples of what can be searched ('actors, enemies, skills, items, etc.'). It distinguishes from most siblings which are creation/update tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-like tools like 'list_resources' or 'describe_asset'.

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 mentions 'with filters' which implies usage when filtering is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_resources' or 'describe_asset'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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