rules_search

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 does this well by explaining the default legacy filter behavior, the nuance that 'is_remaster: false' does not mean 'retired,' and even provides statistical context (54% of backgrounds, 38% of ancestries). It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior or pagination, but the search nature makes that largely implicit.

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 structured into a concise summary paragraph and a detailed note on the critical include_legacy parameter. The second paragraph is lengthy but earns its place because the legacy filter nuance is genuinely non-obvious and decision-relevant. No filler sentences are present, though the reference to 'licensing.legacy_filter_sql' is slightly technical.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary behavior, return format, sibling-tool differentiation, and the most important filter nuance. It also points to an output schema for raw data. It does not explicitly describe limit behavior or pack/type filtering, but those are straightforward from the schema. Given the tool's search nature and the presence of an output schema, this is a quite complete description.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains include_legacy: its default, its effect, and when to change it. However, the description does not add meaning for query, pack, type, or limit; those rely on their names and schema titles. While include_legacy is the most complex parameter, the others are left entirely to the schema, leaving partial compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over PF2e rules content') and clearly states what it returns ('compact summaries (id/name/pack/type/level/category)'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly directing users to rules_get_entry for full data, eliminating ambiguity about its scope.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative ('call rules_get_entry with an id for the full description and raw data'), and it gives a clear rule for when to set include_legacy=True ('whenever the user wants the full catalog'). This is exactly the kind of when-to-use/when-not-to-use context the rubric asks for.

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