search_races

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. While 'search' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a fuzzy or exact match search, what fields are searched, how results are sorted/limited, or what format the output takes. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 immediately communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'detailed trait information', how results are structured, whether there are pagination/limitation constraints, or how this differs from other race-related tools. The context signals indicate this is a simple tool, but the description should provide more operational context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'Search query for race names (optional)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('D&D 5E races with detailed trait information'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_race_details' or 'unified_search', which could provide similar race information through different mechanisms.

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 like 'get_race_details' (which might retrieve specific races by ID) or 'unified_search' (which might search across multiple entity types). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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