search_fandom_cache

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that results come from a cache and are non-scripting reference material, but it says nothing about cache staleness, whether fandom_cache_status must be checked first, or result limits — all relevant for a cache-backed search.

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?

Two tight sentences; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage/exclusion context follows. No filler, though it spends wording on scope adjectives rather than the undocumented parameters.

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-value explanation is rightly omitted, and purpose plus usage scope are covered. However, with zero parameter documentation and no behavioral notes about the cache, the definition is only minimally complete for a 3-param search tool.

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% for all three parameters (query, limit, include_text), so the description must compensate — and it does not mention any of them. An agent gets no guidance on query syntax, what limit means, or what include_text returns.

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 (search) and resource (cached Roblox BedWars Fandom gameplay/wiki pages), and the scope qualifier 'cached' separates it from live-doc siblings. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from read_fandom_page or search_docs, leaving the agent to infer search-vs-read semantics.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('non-scripting reference data such as kits, items, commands, updates, maps, blocks') and routes the scripting case away ('Official Lua APIs still come from docs.easy.gg tools'). It does not name the exact sibling (e.g. search_docs) that carries the scripting use case.

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