Search StarCraft II knowledge

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds real operational context: it discloses cost ('Free'), source provenance ('the same sources the AI Coach cites'), and an output contract ('answer from the passages and cite their URLs'). It does not mention rate limits or result ranking, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, densely packed with zero filler. The scope/source list is front-loaded and the usage directive follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent what to do with the returned passages (answer from them, cite URLs). Combined with the explicit source coverage and cost note, an agent has what it needs; only result ordering/pagination behavior is left implicit.

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% — the schema itself documents 'query' with examples and 'limit' with its default and bounds — so the description need not repeat any of it. It adds no syntax or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Search') and a precisely scoped resource ('StarCraft2.ai's StarCraft II knowledge base') and enumerates the corpora it covers (Liquipedia unit/building/ability data, patch notes, strategy/matchup articles, pro-game insights). This clearly separates it from the replay-centric siblings like ask_about_replay and get_analysis.

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?

Gives explicit usage conditions: 'Use it to answer general SC2 questions (unit stats, counters, build orders, patch changes, matchup advice)'. The word 'general' implicitly routes replay-specific questions to ask_about_replay, but that alternative is never named, so the routing is left partly to inference.

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