stapi_search_starship

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on matching behavior (exact vs substring), result shape, or handling of ambiguous names like 'Enterprise'.

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 no filler. The scope ('Star Trek') and the matching key ('by name') both appear immediately, so an agent can decide in one read.

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 one-parameter lookup with full annotations this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say roughly what is returned (e.g. ship class, registry, crew) and whether matching is fuzzy. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict the result shape.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is documented with an example in the schema itself. The description's 'by name' merely restates it, adding no syntax, casing, or partial-match detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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') and a specific resource ('Star Trek starships/spacecraft'), scoped by the 'Star Trek' qualifier which implicitly distinguishes it from the Star Wars counterpart swapi_search_starships. No explicit sibling routing, but the entity boundary is clear from the text alone.

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 guidance, no mention of when to prefer stapi_search_character or stapi_search_species, and no statement about whether the name must be exact or may be partial. An agent must infer that this is for ships only from the single word 'starships'.

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