reward_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches by name and returns a list of matching entries, which conveys a read-only, non-mutating behavior. However, it does not mention search semantics such as partial matching, ordering, default ruleset behavior, or whether homebrew is excluded by default, though some of these are implied by 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The usage guidance is delivered efficiently after the primary statement.

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 simple search tool with 5 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description provides enough context: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use an alternative. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear 'returns a list of matching entries' statement, though richer detail on result ordering or empty-result behavior would make it fully complete.

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 even without extra parameter detail in the description. The description adds the 'by name' semantic for query, which is useful, but it does not meaningfully expand on the other parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: 'Search D&D 5e supernatural gift or boons by name.' It also distinguishes the tool from the generic omnisearch sibling by noting the content-type-specific scope, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting the schema.

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 states when to use this tool ('when you know the content type') and when to use the alternative instead ('if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead'). This is clear routing guidance that leaves little to inference.

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