search_spell_lists

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. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what constitutes a 'spell list' versus individual spells, whether results are paginated, what format the results take, or any limitations on the search functionality. 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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 (search functionality with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the domain and resource but doesn't provide enough context about what 'spell lists' contain, how results are structured, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more return value 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query for class names, limit with constraints). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify what 'class names' means in D&D context (full names, abbreviations, etc.) or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, baseline 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 available D&D 5E spell lists by class' - this specifies the verb (search), resource (spell lists), and domain context (D&D 5E). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_spell_lists' or 'get_spells_by_class', which appear to serve related functions.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to spells and spell lists (get_all_spell_lists, get_spells_by_class, get_spells_for_class, search_spells), there's no indication of when this specific search-by-class functionality is preferred over those other options.

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