race_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns a list of matching entries, which establishes the read-only search behavior, and clarifies the scope to playable species or races. It could add a bit more about result shape, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 only two sentences and wastes no words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is placed immediately after. Every sentence provides signal.

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?

The description covers what the tool searches, what it returns, and when to prefer omnisearch instead. Since there is no output schema, it could optionally mention that full detail is available via race_get, but the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide to call this search tool correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only a modest semantic detail by saying searches are 'by name', which aligns with the query parameter. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clear resource ('D&D 5e playable species or races'), and the matching mechanism ('by name'). 'Returns a list of matching entries' also sets it apart from a detail-fetch tool like race_get.

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 tells an agent to use this tool when the content type is known, and directs uncertain cases to omnisearch. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling search tools and gives actionable routing guidance.

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