Look up event command codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notably well: it discloses that results are parameter names in order, that exact `codes` additionally returns the engine body, and why that body matters (disambiguating which params index is consumed). It does not state read-only nature explicitly, but read behavior is implied by 'Search/Returns'.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the reason the richer mode matters. The parenthetical example earns its place by clarifying the value of the engine body. No filler, though the final clause is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape, and it does: parameter names in order, plus engine body when `codes` is supplied. For a 2-param, all-optional lookup tool this is sufficient to call correctly, with only minor gaps around error/empty-result behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains that passing exact `codes` changes the return shape to include the engine body, and warns that a name like `operateValueArg1` alone does not disambiguate params[1] vs params[2]. That is semantics the schema does not convey.

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: 'Search the command dictionary derived from the engine's Game_Interpreter.' An agent understands this is a lookup of event command codes. However, it never names its closest sibling (decode_commands) or otherwise differentiates itself, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 does distinguish the two modes ('Ask for exact `codes` to also get the engine body'), which is useful usage signal. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like decode_commands, leaving the selection to inference.

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