search_armor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), error handling, or rate limits. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential scope information ('with filtering options'). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidance. The schema covers parameters well, but without annotations or output schema, the agent must guess at behaviors like result format or safety. This is the bare minimum for a search tool.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capabilities. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding (e.g., explaining how 'query' interacts with other filters).

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for D&D 5E armor with filtering options'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('D&D 5E armor'), and scope ('with filtering options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_armor_details' or 'unified_search', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_armor_details' (for specific armor details) or 'unified_search' (for broader searches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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