variantrule_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. It discloses that this is a read-style search that returns a list, ruling out mutation, but it does not clarify matching behavior, edge cases, or output structure beyond that. For a non-destructive search tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 no filler: the core action comes first, the return behavior second, and the routing guidance last. Every clause contributes to selection or invocation.

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 supplies the essential selection cue, the search scope, and the return shape. It stops short of describing result fields or edge-case behavior, and since there is no output schema, a small completeness gap remains.

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 schema already documents query, limit, fields, ruleset, and include_homebrew. The description only reinforces 'by name,' which aligns with query but adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), resource ('D&D 5e variant rules'), and scope ('by name'), followed by what it returns. The closing sentence distinguishes it from omnisearch, and the tool name distinguishes it from the other typed content 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 the content type is known—and provides the alternative, omnisearch, for uncertain cases. This gives an agent clear routing guidance without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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