search_chains

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 adds ethical context about transition types and IDEOLOGICAL warnings but fails to disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only but not stated.

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 paragraph that is moderately concise. It front-loads the main purpose and includes relevant ethical notes. Could be slightly more structured but not overly verbose.

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?

With 6 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description lacks return format, pagination behavior, and usage context. It is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 50%. The description mentions chain_type, region, year, status filters but does not explain limit/offset. The ethical note on chain_type adds some value, but overall the description does not fully compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a search for succession/dynastic/colonial chains with specific filters. It distinguishes the resource 'chains' from sibling tools like 'search_events' and 'search_cities', though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_chain' or 'entity_predecessors'.

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 lists filters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'entity_predecessors' or 'entity_successors'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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