bg3_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: matching is 'name or any field contains text', and defined_in restricts to entries the layer itself defines or overrides. It stops short of stating read-only nature, result-limit behavior, or performance considerations, so it is adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, and every clause maps to a parameter or matching rule. The key:value shorthand is efficient, though slightly cryptic for the defined_in example.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, with six parameters at 0% schema coverage, undocumented limit/layers plus absent usage and sibling-routing guidance leave the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains type (with concrete value examples like SpellData, StatusData, Weapon), field, and defined_in, but leaves limit and layers completely undocumented. Four of six parameters get some treatment, two get none.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with matching semantics: 'Find stats entries whose name or any field contains `text`.' That is enough to distinguish the tool from generic siblings, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like bg3_search_effects, bg3_get_entry, or bg3_spell_list, so an agent cannot tell which search to pick from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The description reads as parameter notes rather than usage instructions, so the agent must infer when this is the right search tool versus bg3_search_effects or bg3_get_entry.

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