search_sections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Search' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a full-text search or metadata search, what fields are searched (names, content, or both), how results are ranked, whether it's case-sensitive, what happens with empty queries, or typical response format. The description only states the basic purpose without operational details.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It doesn't explain what the search returns (sections matching what criteria), how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or what happens when no results are found. For a tool with 2 parameters and complex search behavior, the description provides insufficient context for effective use.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the search covers 'rule section names or content' (which the schema's query description already states). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('D&D 5E rules sections') with the specific purpose of 'quick rule lookups'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_all_sections' (which presumably lists all without search) and 'get_section_details' (which gets details of a specific section). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'unified_search' which might search across multiple resource types.

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_sections' versus 'get_all_sections' (for browsing all sections), 'get_section_details' (for detailed information on a known section), or 'unified_search' (for cross-resource searching). There's no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.

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