tibia_find_spells

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about pagination via cursor, default result size, or what include_inactive/limit affect. With an output schema present, missing return-value info is forgivable, but the interaction of 12 optional filters is undisclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by a concrete example and a cross-tool pointer. No padding, though the example could be trimmed if space were tighter.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with 12 parameters and low schema description coverage the description should at least mention pagination (cursor) and the include_inactive toggle, which materially change results. Adequate for a basic call, thin for correct filtered/paged use.

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 only 42% (7 of 12 params undocumented), so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It restates facet names already in the schema but says nothing about cursor, limit, is_premium, rune_group, spell_type, include_inactive, or the distinction between level and level_max. The schema itself carries the few useful hints (sort ordering, rune_group redirect), not the description.

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?

Specific verb+resource with an enumerated list of filter dimensions (vocation, level, group, element, type, words), which matches the schema. It names tibia_get as a follow-up tool, though it doesn't differentiate from other tibia_find_* siblings like tibia_search, which is referenced only obliquely in the schema.

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 example question ("which healing spells can a level 30 druid cast") gives a concrete use case, and the second sentence routes the agent to tibia_get for cooldowns/effect/area. No explicit exclusions or guidance on when to prefer tibia_search over this tool, so not a 5.

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