bg3_similar_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. It says the results come 'with their visual kits', which hints at the return, but says nothing about permission needs, result volume, or how filters combine (AND vs OR) for a 7-param 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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and filter facets front-loaded and no filler. The keyword-parenthetical for spell types slightly interrupts the flow but earns its place by clarifying an otherwise opaque parameter.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure needn't be explained. But with 0% param coverage and no annotations, the description should account for all filters; it silently skips 'layers' and 'limit', leaving those two parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 is doing the documenting: it maps damage type, school, spell type, level and keyword to real parameters and even samples spell_type values (Target, Projectile, Shout, Zone). It omits 'layers' and 'limit' entirely, so the compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 resource (spells) and enumerates the matching facets — damage type, school, spell type, level, name keyword — plus the payoff of attaching visual kits. It reads as a filtered search that differs from bg3_spell_list, but that sibling is never named to make the distinction explicit.

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?

"to borrow effects and animations for new spells" conveys the intended use case, which is better than nothing. However, it gives no when-not guidance and never names alternatives like bg3_spell_list or bg3_spell_visuals, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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