inara_website_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful operational fact ('no API key needed'), but nothing about whether this scrapes the live Inara site, what 'page check' does on failure, rate-limiting, or whether the search is scoped to one or all of the optional fields.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy. The fragment is cryptic ('links + page check') and the parenthetical about API keys is the only concrete content in it.

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?

An output schema exists, which relieves the description of explaining return values, and all parameters are optional so the call is easy to make. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a near-duplicate sibling (inara_search_nearest), the definition still leaves too much unexplained for an agent to call it confidently.

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 0% and all three parameters (commodity, system_name, station_name) are bare strings with empty defaults. The description never mentions any parameter, so it adds zero meaning beyond the schema and leaves the agent unable to tell what these filters do or how they combine.

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 phrase 'Inara website search links + page check' largely restates the tool name rather than stating a specific action. It never says what is searched (commodities, systems, stations), what 'links' means, or what 'page check' verifies, and it does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling inara_search_nearest.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given at all. With close siblings like inara_search_nearest, find_commodity, and get_station_market in the list, the agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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