search_spells

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 states the tool is for searching with filtering, but doesn't reveal key behaviors such as whether it returns partial matches, how it handles missing parameters, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. It directly communicates the tool's function and scope, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by contributing 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of spells with details), how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances like pagination or error handling. For a search tool with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'advanced filtering options,' which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. 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: 'Search for D&D 5E spells with advanced filtering options.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('D&D 5E spells'), and scope ('advanced filtering options'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_spell_by_level' or 'get_spell_details,' 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 mentions 'advanced filtering options,' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over sibling tools like 'get_spell_by_level' or 'get_spells_by_class,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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