search_moegirl

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the dual-mode search (full-text index with snippet return, then fallback to title fuzzy match) and the purpose of the fallback (to ensure hit rate). This is transparent about the tool's internal logic and expected output behavior.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs in the search algorithm details without unnecessary fluff. However, it could be improved by adding parameter explanations in a structured manner without sacrificing conciseness.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good overview of the search logic but lacks detail on parameters and return format. It is adequate for understanding what the tool does but insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without guessing parameter semantics.

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 0% description coverage for its two parameters (keyword and limit). The description does not explain what these parameters do, how they affect the search, or any constraints (e.g., format, range). For a tool with no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without necessary parameter guidance.

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 function: searching Moegirl Wiki entries. It explains the two-step search strategy (generator=search full-text with snippets, then fallback to opensearch fuzzy matching), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_page' (which retrieves a specific page). This is specific and actionable for an agent.

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 provides context on the search strategy (when full-text search is used and when the fallback kicks in) but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when to avoid it. The sibling tool 'get_page' is available, but no comparison is made. The usage guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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