search_lolfarm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the search scope and filtering option. It does not describe output format, result limits, or pagination, but for a simple search tool those are not critical and no unsafe or unexpected behavior is implied.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose and full source scope are front-loaded, and the optional filtering behavior is stated clearly and economically.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter search tool, the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. It does not explain the return shape, but the schema handles parameter details and the intended operation is unambiguous.

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 both parameters with examples. The description adds only the 'single query' and 'source filter' emphasis, which is useful but does not need to compensate for missing parameter explanations.

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 clearly states the tool performs a search across all LOLFarm sources, enumerating the included source types. The 'single query' phrasing and the all-sources scope distinguish it from source-specific sibling tools like lookup_loldriver or lookup_hijacklib.

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 implies use for broad, cross-source searches and mentions the optional source filter as a way to narrow results. It does not explicitly say when to prefer source-specific lookup tools, but the contrast between 'ALL sources' and 'optional source filter' provides clear context.

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