adventure_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the primary output behavior ('Returns a list of matching entries') and the search scope, but it does not explicitly state the read-only safety profile, absence of side effects, or edge behaviors such as default exclusion of homebrew. The disclosed information is useful but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior, and usage routing. The most decision-critical information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately states the return shape ('a list of matching entries'). Combined with full schema coverage of all parameters and explicit alternative routing to omnisearch, an agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly. Minor omissions such as sort order and pagination behavior are low-stakes gaps for a list 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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters already carry descriptive documentation, meeting the baseline. The description's 'by name' reinforces the query parameter semantics but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides for limit, fields, ruleset, or include_homebrew. This is an adequate but not compensating contribution.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('D&D 5e published adventures'), and the matching mechanism ('by name'), then confirms the outcome ('Returns a list of matching entries'). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling search tools by content type and from adventure_get, which retrieves a specific adventure.

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 gives explicit when-to-use direction ('Use when you know the content type') and names the alternative with its selection condition ('if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead'). This is direct routing guidance that removes ambiguity for the agent.

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