search_training_simulators

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search and retrieve' implies a safe read-only lookup and the omit-to-list-all behavior is stated, but response shape, pagination, and rate-limit or auth behavior are not described.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted framing. The enumeration of resource types earns its place by clarifying the scope of the catalog.

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 search with two optional filters and no output schema, the description explains scope and catalog-listing behavior. It leaves the return format and pagination unspecified, which is a meaningful gap given there is no output schema.

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 defines both optional parameters in detail. The description adds the conceptual 'skill topic, format, or slug' framing but no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pair: searching and retrieving training simulators, tools, calculators, and scenario games. It enumerates concrete resource types and scope, making it distinguishable from sibling lesson, venue, or calculation 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?

It clearly states the supported search axes (skill topic, format, slug) and that omitting the query lists the full catalog. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling search or calculation tools, but the intended context is clear.

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