ddb_search_spells

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which lowers the burden. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these hints: the first call builds the compendium and is slow, subsequent calls are instant, and login is required. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the scope and filters, the second explains performance characteristics, and the third notes the authentication requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description tells the agent what the tool does, what filters it supports, that the first call is slow, and that login is required. However, there is no output schema, so the description might have explained what the search returns (e.g., spell names vs. full details, pagination behavior). This omission is the main gap, but the rich schema and annotations compensate enough for a 4.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only lists the same searchable fields (name, level, school, concentration, ritual) and does not add additional meaning, such as how parameters interact or format expectations. It neither improves nor detracts from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('full D&D Beyond spell compendium') with attributes (by name, level, school, concentration, or ritual). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools for other resource types (e.g., ddb_search_monsters) and from ddb_get_spell, which likely retrieves a single spell.

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 clear context on what the tool searches and includes practical usage notes (first call is slow, requires login). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'for full spell details, use ddb_get_spell instead'), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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