search_fivem_native

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding a concrete network boundary ('only to two fixed official index URLs'), which meaningfully narrows the broad openWorldHint, plus mentions API-set filtering and source links. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the network is unavailable.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and resource stated first and the network constraint as a follow-on caveat.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a result looks like; 'source links' is the only hint at return content. For a simple read-only search this is close to adequate, but the meaning of `side` and the shape of results remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description has to carry parameter meaning and only partly does: 'by name/hash' usefully clarifies the `query` field beyond a bare 2-100 char string, and 'API-set filtering' hints at `side`. The `limit` parameter and the exact client/server/any semantics of `side` are left entirely to the schema, and 'API-set filtering' is too vague to be reliable.

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 gives a specific verb (Search) plus a precisely-scoped resource (the official GTA and Cfx native indexes) and names the lookup keys (name/hash). That is plainly a different resource class from every sibling (skill/topic lookups, resource inspection, fxmanifest validation), so an agent can route to it without ambiguity.

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 phrasing 'by name/hash' implies what kinds of queries are appropriate, which is light usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over reviewing FiveM source code or inspecting a resource, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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