search_encyclopedia

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 traits. It mentions returning top BM25 matches, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any additional behavior such as rate limits, authentication requirements, query length limits, or error handling. The description is minimal for a search tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action (search) and result (top BM25 matches). Every word is meaningful, and there is no extraneous information.

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 a single required parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It is complete enough for a basic search tool, but could be improved by noting that the query is required (already in schema) and that results are limited or ranked. The presence of a sibling tool adds context, but the description alone is slightly lacking.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The only parameter is 'query', which is self-explanatory, but the description adds only the context of BM25, which is more about ranking than the parameter's meaning. It does not elaborate on query format, encoding, or special syntax, leaving the agent with minimal guidance beyond the schema's type.

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 searches the Leekwars encyclopedia and returns top BM25 matches. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'encyclopedia', but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_encyclopedia_page', which likely retrieves a specific page. The purpose is clear but could be more distinctive.

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 implies usage when a user wants to search the encyclopedia, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_encyclopedia_page'. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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