search-compendium-creatures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool is backed by the Compendium Browser using real system data for CR/type/size, notes that hasSpells and hasLegendaryActions are approximate index flags, and specifies the output fields (id, name, type, uuid, pack, packLabel, img, facets) and ordering (premium-first). 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 a single, dense paragraph with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose in capital letters, then sequentially covers constraints, data source, output format, and workflow hints. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the tool has 6 parameters (including an enum and nested object) and no output schema, the description covers the scope, data source, approximate flags, output fields, and recommended workflow. It could briefly note that all parameters are optional, but the schema already indicates no required parameters. The description sufficiently prepares the agent for correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that hasSpells and hasLegendaryActions are approximate flags, and for challengeRating suggests using ranges for broader discovery. While it doesn't expand much per parameter beyond the schema, it provides useful context for effective use of the tool.

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 tool's purpose: find D&D 5e creatures matching faceted criteria from premium Actor packs only, explicitly excluding SRD packs. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search-compendium, search-compendium-items, and search-compendium-spells by specifying the scope and data source.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for creature discovery across premium packs while the SRD is excluded. It also suggests a workflow: use this to identify candidates, then pull full stat blocks with get-compendium-entry. It mentions high result limits for encounter-building surveys, providing context for appropriate use.

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