search_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions return fields but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or sorting behavior. The description is minimal, lacking depth beyond what the input schema already indicates.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and purpose, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), the description adequately states the purpose and return fields but omits details like pagination limits and default behavior for optional filters. It covers basics but is not completely thorough.

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 the input schema fully describes parameters. The description adds value by listing returned fields (type_id, name, group, category), which gives context but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline score 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 tool searches Eve Online item types by name and lists returned fields (type_id, name, group, category). It provides examples of what to find (ships, modules, ammo, drones), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_types or get_type, slighting missing a contrast.

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 suggests using this tool to find items by name, which implies general search. It does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., get_type for exact IDs, search_blueprints for blueprints). The guidance is implied but not explicit, so scores a 3.

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