search_backgrounds

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,' which aligns with the input schema parameters (query and limit), but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are ordered, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of background names or full details), or any rate limits. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Search for D&D 5E character backgrounds') and adds a useful qualifier ('with filtering options'). There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of background names, summaries, or full details), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances like pagination or error handling. For a search tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (query and limit). The phrase 'with filtering options' implies the existence of parameters but doesn't explain their semantics or usage beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for D&D 5E character backgrounds with filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('D&D 5E character backgrounds'), and scope ('with filtering options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_background_details' or other search tools like 'search_armor' or 'search_spells', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 when to use 'search_backgrounds' instead of 'get_background_details' (which likely retrieves details for a specific background) or 'unified_search' (which might search across multiple resource types). No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual advice are provided.

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