mhw_monsters

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about result shape, pagination, whether name is required, whether the search is substring or exact, or rate limits. A read-only search is low-risk, but the description is silent on behavior the annotations would otherwise cover.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 trivial two-param search with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits the one thing that would help an agent: whether name is optional and what an empty call returns, plus match semantics. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, limit with default 10) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about match semantics (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity), which would be the valuable addition. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (Monster Hunter World monsters) plus the search field (by name). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't reference its sibling mhw_weapons to establish the domain scope explicitly.

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 no when-to-use context, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It doesn't tell the agent that this only searches by name (not by type, element, or weakness), which is the most likely mis-invocation given the sibling mhw_weapons.

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