Find scaling passives

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: results include distances from the class start and that ascendancy's nodes, and listAscendancy returns every node with stats. It omits any statement about result limits or pagination 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?

Front-loads what is returned, then the class/ascendancy distance behavior, then terms with examples, then the listAscendancy escape hatch. The long term-example list is dense but earns its place by demonstrating acceptable term granularity.

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?

For a 6-param tool with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented, the description covers the important query paths but leaves limit and includeJewelSockets unexplained and says nothing about response size or ordering.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description usefully explains class, ascendancy, terms (with concrete examples) and listAscendancy semantics, including the terms-required-unless-listAscendancy rule. However, limit and includeJewelSockets remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb (find) plus a precise resource scope: notables, keystones and ascendancy notables whose text matches the build's scaling stats. It reads as a keyword-driven passive search, distinguishable in spirit from plan_passive_tree, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

States two clear modes and their conditions: supply terms to match passive text, or set listAscendancy to enumerate an ascendancy's nodes with no terms needed, and explains why (to see all 8-point options). It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like plan_passive_tree.

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