search-compendium

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does so comprehensively: it searches names only (not descriptions/traits), matches all whitespace-separated terms, sorts premium-first and exact-name first, and limits results to 50. There are no contradictions.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then detailing constraints and alternatives. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description explains the search scope, limitations, and suggested follow-up tool (get-compendium-entry). It could be slightly more explicit about the output format (e.g., returns a list of matching pack entries), but it is sufficient for an AI agent to understand usage and next steps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the search behavior (e.g., 'Use broad, simple terms') beyond the schema. For example, it clarifies that the query is matched only against names, not descriptions, which the schema's description doesn't explicitly state.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Broad NAME search across the premium book compendium packs'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that SRD packs are not searched and that type-specific tools exist for faceted discovery. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('quick name lookup') and when not to ('for faceted discovery by real system data... use the type-specific tools instead'). It also specifies that SRD packs never appear, setting correct expectations.

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