condition_search

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, but for a read-only name search the risk surface is small. It discloses the return shape (a list of matching entries) yet says nothing about pagination behavior, default result counts, or the interaction with the ruleset/homebrew toggles, leaving those 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then routing guidance. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and a fully documented input schema, the description covers the essential contract for a low-risk read-only search tool. Minor gaps remain around result pagination and whether fields/ruleset defaults affect interpretation, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters (query, limit, fields, ruleset, include_homebrew) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about any parameter, which is the baseline 3 for a well-covered 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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('D&D 5e condition, disease, or status effects'), and a scope ('by name'), plus the return shape ('list of matching entries'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the many *_search siblings by naming the content type it covers.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use this when the content type is known, otherwise fall back to omnisearch. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that lets an agent choose correctly among the large sibling set.

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