ddb_search_backgrounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by noting the inclusion of homebrew and the login requirement. However, it does not disclose details like pagination behavior or return format, which are left to the schema.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. It is highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a simple search operation with clear parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the essential context: scope (all backgrounds including homebrew) and the login requirement. It does not explain the return structure or pagination behavior, but for a basic search tool with well-documented parameters, this is reasonably 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (name, limit, offset), so the schema carries the explanatory burden. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already explains each parameter clearly. No compensation needed beyond the baseline.

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 function: 'Search all D&D Beyond backgrounds (including homebrew).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling search tools like ddb_search_monsters or ddb_search_spells. The inclusion of 'including homebrew' adds valuable scope detail.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: 'Requires login — run ddb_login first if you haven't already.' This tells the user when the tool can be used (after login) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like other search tools. It does not state when not to use this tool, but the subject matter (backgrounds) is clear enough for most use cases.

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