dd2_rsz

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose several useful traits: the index is offline, may be stale versus game patches, and matching is case-insensitive regex. It does not disclose what action='download' actually does on disk (overwrite? network fetch? permissions? size/time cost), which is a meaningful gap for a tool that can mutate local state.

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?

Four compact sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads the text. The opening sentence is overloaded with parenthetical provenance, but nothing is redundant and each remaining sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 shape need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage with no annotations, leaving 'limit' and the action enum undocumented leaves an agent guessing about pagination and valid mode values.

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, and it only partly does: it explains that 'pattern' is a case-insensitive regex over type names and expands to field names/types when fields=True, and that action='download' refreshes the dump. It never mentions 'limit' (default 200) or enumerates valid action values besides 'download' (search is the default).

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Offline type dump search') and identifies the backing data source (alphaZomega RE_RSZ rszdd2.json, all serializable types + fields), so an agent knows exactly what it queries. It also distinguishes itself from the live sibling dd2_types, though the distinction is buried at the end rather than stated up front.

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?

It gives a clear use condition ('no game needed' / offline browsing) and points to the alternative when freshness matters ('The dump can lag game patches: confirm live with dd2_types'). It does not say when not to use it beyond the staleness caveat, but the routing signal to the live sibling is explicit.

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