search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little beyond scope. It says nothing about ranking, result limits, pagination, or what a match looks like, all of which matter for a search tool with no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded. The long parenthetical enumerating 16 categories largely duplicates the category enum in the schema, which is slightly wasteful but not harmful.

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?

For a three-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the search space but omits result behavior and when to prefer it over the many structured siblings. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents query, category, and expansions. The description only restates the category list, adding no syntax or filtering semantics beyond the enum. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: full-text search across all TI4 game data, and enumerates the covered domains. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_rules or the list_* tools, leaving the agent to infer that this is the fuzzy/free-text path versus exact lookups.

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 and no alternatives named. With siblings like list_factions, get_tech, and get_rules present, the agent gets no help deciding when free-text search beats a structured lookup.

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