search_magic_items

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 mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't describe key behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned results. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part of it earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key feature (filtering).

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, result format, error conditions, and usage context. For a search tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering capabilities, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as searching for D&D 5E magic items with filtering options, which includes a specific verb ('search'), resource ('magic items'), and domain context ('D&D 5E'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_magic_item_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_magic_item_details' for specific item details or 'unified_search' for broader searches, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for filtering magic items.

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