Creature Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the Open5e source and the campaign-system restriction, which is real behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose behavior for empty source, default filtering, or whether results are paginated beyond the schema's limit/offset defaults.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the important source/system gate is added in a separate, clearly scoped sentence.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values do not need explanation. Still, the tool has 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description only clarifies source. The behavior of an empty source value and the meaning/format of cr are important gaps, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the source parameter and its srd/custom values. The cr, limit, offset, and search parameters are left undocumented; cr in particular could mean challenge rating but that is never stated.

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 clearly states a specific verb (search/检索) and a specific resource (Open5e SRD + campaign custom monster library). It also names the two source scopes, srd and custom, and adds the system-gate nuance, which disambiguates this from sibling tools like token_place_creature or character_list.

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 gives explicit conditional usage context: source=srd is only valid in DND_5E campaigns, while custom is unrestricted. This tells an agent when each source mode is appropriate. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives among sibling tools, but the search-versus-placement distinction is clear from purpose.

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