search_characters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches names and descriptions, but does not mention that it performs a read-only operation, returns matching entries, or has any limitations like pagination or case sensitivity. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, concise sentence with no irrelevant content. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. While brevity is a virtue, here it sacrifices essential context that could be provided without excessive length.

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?

Although an output schema exists, eliminating the need to describe return values, the description still fails to explain required parameters, usage context, or how it relates to other search tools. It is a bare-bones statement that is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 must compensate. It partially explains the 'query' parameter by indicating it searches names and descriptions, but it completely ignores 'project_id' (a required parameter) and 'max_results' (with a default). This leaves the agent without crucial information about how to properly invoke the tool.

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 'Search character names and descriptions' clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (characters), making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search tools like search_notes or search_chapters, nor does it mention the project scoping implied by the required project_id parameter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_characters or search_chapters. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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