feat_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry some behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of matching entries, which is basic but useful. However, it does not describe search semantics (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity), filtering behavior, or what happens with no matches, though some of this is partially addressed by parameter descriptions in 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the routing guidance is delivered in a compact conditional clause. Every word 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?

For a five-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus fully documented schema covers the essential invocation context: what to search, what is returned, and when to prefer an alternative. It could mention result format or default ordering, but those are not critical for correct selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents; its 'search by name' phrasing roughly maps to the query parameter but does not elaborate on limit, fields, ruleset, or include_homebrew.

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 action (search), resource (D&D 5e feats), and mechanism (by name), and clarifies the return type (a list of matching entries). This clearly distinguishes it from feat_get and other resource-specific searches.

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 this tool — when you know the content type is feats — and names the alternative (omnisearch) plus the condition for choosing it (if unsure of the type). No ambiguity remains for selection.

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