search_drops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (drop locations, relics, missions, enemies, drop chances) but does not mention authenication requirements, rate limits, result limits (beyond schema), error handling, or the exact format of drop chances. This is acceptable for a read-only search tool but leaves gaps.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search drop tables') and then specifies outputs. Every clause adds value, with no meaningless filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool is a straightforward search operation with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains return values: drop locations, relics, missions, enemies, and drop chances. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'relic_drops' tool, and it omits any mention of filtering (min_chance, limit) or per-query behavior, which would be useful for a complete picture.

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%, with all three parameters (queries, limit, min_chance) having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond schema; it only mentions 'one or more items' and 'drop chances', which loosely maps to queries and min_chance. Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'drop tables', and specifies the scope: 'for one or more items' and the outputs: 'where they drop, from which relics, missions, and enemies, with drop chances.' This is specific and distinguishes it from broader lookup tools, though not from sibling 'relic_drops' specifically.

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 usage by explaining what the tool does, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'relic_drops' or 'lookup_item'. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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