Game data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and meets it: it discloses return behavior for single vs multiple vs zero matches, specifies the disambiguation behavior, and mentions the error response. It also clarifies the source semantics ('ground truth for THIS world') and that results are 'curated, labeled facts'.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then systematically builds detail: source contrast, kind coverage, query types, return outcomes, and error case. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with two params and no output schema: it explains what the tool searches, how to construct queries, what the response shapes will be (dossier, disambiguation list, empty match), and error behavior. Nothing essential is left ambiguous.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the `kind` filter with a default value and enumerates the six kinds, and provides rich examples for `query` (tokens, substrings, and unit_id for creatures). This goes well beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('the LOADED WORLD's raws'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as the authoritative source for procedural creatures that never appear on the wiki. It also lists the exact kinds of data covered, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 contrasts with the wiki ('procedural creatures ... that never appear on the wiki'), indicating when to prefer this tool. It also provides concrete query examples and notes the default kind, giving clear guidance on how to use it. The error condition for no loaded game is also stated.

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