search_units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that results are a 'compact list' limited to 'max 10', and that matching covers name, faction, keywords, and ability text. This goes beyond the schema, which does not specify result limits. It is appropriate for a search tool, though it could mention more about case sensitivity or sorting.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then specifies search fields and output behavior. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or 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 tool with 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and output format ('compact list' of max 10). It does not detail the exact fields returned, but this is acceptable given the schema's thorough parameter documentation and the likely follow-up with lookup tools. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of search criteria (name, faction, keywords, ability text) largely duplicates the schema's query parameter description. It adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as the ability filter's match on unique actions or the game_mode defaults.

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 ('Search'), resource ('Warhammer 40K units or Kill Team operatives'), and the search criteria ('by name, faction, keywords, or ability text'). This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools that likely retrieve exact entities, as 'search' implies flexible/fuzzy matching. The return limit of max 10 further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage contexts for searching across multiple fields, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over lookup_unit or other siblings. It lacks 'when not to use' guidance or mention of alternatives. The context is clear for what it searches, but no exclusion criteria are provided.

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