bg3_search_effects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the matching algorithm (name or any component effect's name) and the shape of what's returned, but says nothing about read-only nature, case sensitivity, pagination behavior via limit, or what 'layers' scopes. Partial behavioral coverage.

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?

Single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and examples inline; every clause adds value. Slightly awkward line wrapping but no wasted content.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, the essential input semantics ('text') and return shape are covered. However, limit and layers remain unexplained anywhere, so an agent cannot use them correctly without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only explains the 'text' parameter's matching semantics. Neither 'limit' (default 20) nor 'layers' is explained in the schema or the description, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 (Find/search) and resource (effects), and clarifies the matching rule: the MultiEffectInfos name OR any component effect's name. Concrete examples ('Necrotic', 'Impact_BodyFX') and the downstream use (GUID for a stats *Effect field) make it clearly distinguishable from siblings like bg3_search, bg3_effect, and bg3_spell_visuals.

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?

Usage is implied through the stated purpose: find an effect GUID to place in a stats *Effect field. That gives real context for why an agent would reach for this tool, but it names no alternatives and provides no when-not guidance (e.g., versus bg3_search or bg3_effect).

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