Search Ravelry yarns

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description usefully adds the non-obvious default that discontinued yarns are excluded and a summary of what each match contains (yardage/grams, washability, rating). It does not discuss pagination limits or result caps, which remain undocumented in prose.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is searched, the default exclusion rule, and the return payload. The scope of search is front-loaded with no filler.

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 read-only search with full annotation coverage, a complete output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies the two things structured fields do not: search dimensions and the discontinued-exclusion default. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable but leaves a minor gap.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with enums, defaults and examples such as the "Malabrigo Rios" query example. The description restates the filter categories (name, weight, fiber, attributes) at a high level without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Ravelry yarn database) and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns and how it can be narrowed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as find_yarns_for_pattern or match_yarns, which requires the agent to infer the difference.

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?

"Excludes discontinued yarns unless asked" gives a clear default behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing between this and alternative yarn tools. Usage is implied (search by name/fiber/weight/attributes) rather than stated against alternatives.

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