condition_search

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It does disclose that the tool returns a list of matching entries, which is useful. However, it does not describe matching semantics (partial vs exact, case sensitivity), pagination behavior, or what happens when no matches are found, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and result, and the second provides routing guidance. Every part earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 the low complexity of a search tool, a 100% covered schema, and the description's clear statement of purpose and alternative routing, the definition is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by noting that results are limited/paginated, but the schema already exposes the limit parameter and default.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond restating that the search is 'by name', which the query parameter already says. This meets the baseline for fully covered schemas but does not go beyond it.

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 specific action: 'Search D&D 5e condition or diseases by name' and the result: 'Returns a list of matching entries.' This is a concrete verb+resource pairing that distinguishes condition_search from the many sibling search tools and from omnisearch.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use when you know the content type; if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead.' This is a clear routing rule that names the alternative and the condition for selecting it.

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