Search skills

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the fields each result contains (gemId, tags, skill types, description, weapon requirements, earliest level, uncut-gem/item origin) and by spelling out how each filter class behaves.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by filter semantics and routing. The long 'useful terms' enumeration is dense but functional as a value hint; otherwise every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 compensates by describing the result fields, and it covers filter behavior and sibling routing. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. limit/pagination behavior), but the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 high (86%), setting a baseline of 3, but the description meaningfully refines the key filters: it clarifies that require terms must all match tags/types/name, text words must all appear in the description, and prefer only affects ranking. The 'useful terms' list additionally helps the agent choose valid filter values.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find active and spirit skill gems') and scopes it by the four search axes (gem tags, skill types, name words, description text). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools gem_details and compatible_supports, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly explains the three filter modes (require vs text vs prefer) and routes to alternatives: 'Use gem_details for one gem's full details and compatible_supports for its supports.' It gives strong context for use but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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