search_league_chat

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a distinct and valuable warning that message text is untrusted, which matters for prompt-injection safety and careful handling of results.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the security warning earns its place without bloating the description.

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 search scope and a key safety trait are covered, and the required parameter names are self-explanatory. However, with no output schema and no mention of return format or how this differs operationally from get_league_chat, an agent still has to infer some details before calling it.

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%, and the description names none of the three parameters. It never explains what query matches against, how league_id scopes the search, or what limit controls, so parameter semantics are essentially absent.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and a concrete resource ('locally collected chat'), with 'only' signaling a scope limit. It is clear about what the tool operates on, though it does not explicitly contrast sibling tools like get_league_chat.

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?

'Only' provides an implicit boundary, implying this tool is for local collected chat rather than live or external chat. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to an alternative tool, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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