subclassfeature_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explains that results come from the subclassFeature array embedded in class files and details how ruleset changes behavior between 2024 and 2014 content. This goes beyond a generic 'search' statement, though it stops short of describing result ordering, empty results, or output shape.

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 front-loaded with the action and return source, then provides compact, example-driven filter guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it states the scope, data source, filter usage, and ruleset semantics. It could be more complete by describing result fields or explicitly routing to alternatives, but it gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly for most cases.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for several parameters: class_name is a parent class, subclass_name is a short name like 'Abjurer', level relates to when a feature is gained, and ruleset has a clear default/override behavior. It does not enrich every parameter, but it adds real value beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search D&D 5e subclass features by name, class, or subclass.' It further clarifies that results come from the subclassFeature array in class files, which separates it from sibling tools like classfeature_search and subclass_search.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool and how to narrow searches with class_name, subclass_name, and level. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope and filter guidance make the intended usage clear.

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