Search entities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral traits: returns ranked region-tagged locators, only stage locators have stage_code/difficulty tag, results bounded (default 10, max 50), en/cn never mixed. No contradiction.

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 dense but efficient, with front-loaded main action and no wasted sentences. Slightly verbose but 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, the description covers return types (locators with region tags, stage-specific fields), bounds, and cross-language behavior. Could be improved by explicitly stating return shape for each entity type.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description provides context for each parameter: query is search term, limit is bounded, server controls locale mixing, entity_type filters. However, it does not explain parameter formats or constraints per parameter directly.

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 indexed Arknights entities (operators, enemies, stages, items) by various criteria. It distinguishes from siblings by directing users to get_* tools for full facts and search_stages for stage codes.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use alternatives: get_operator/get_enemy/get_stage for full facts, get_item_drops from item locators, and search_stages for exact stage codes. No ambiguity.

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