search_dota_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, and that it supports English and localized names. This goes beyond a generic search description and gives the agent concrete expectations about how the search behaves.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core capability and output, and the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a search-lookup tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what it searches, what it returns, usage ordering, matching behavior, and language support. It also points to list_supported_languages for language options, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds conceptual context (e.g., 'English or any supported localized name') but does not significantly expand on the schema's parameter meanings. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find heroes/items/abilities by name' and retrieve numeric IDs. It explicitly lists the resource types (heroes, items, abilities) and the action (find/get IDs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_heroes or get_constants that serve different purposes.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this FIRST to resolve names... into the ids other tools need.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool relative to others, and it implies the alternative (other tools that consume these IDs). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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