class_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only mentions that a list of matches is returned. It does not describe partial-name matching behavior, pagination or limits, ruleset filtering, homebrew inclusion, or the absence of side effects, which an agent would want before calling.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with the routing hint placed last. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool has five parameters and no output schema, and the description provides only the most basic invocation context. The schema fills in parameters well, but the description leaves ambiguity about return shape beyond 'matching entries' and does not mention important defaults like limit or ruleset.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only adds that search is by name, which maps to the query parameter, and does not elaborate on limit, fields, ruleset, or include_homebrew; the schema already documents those adequately.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search D&D 5e character classes by name, and says it returns a list of matching entries. This distinguishes it from omnisearch and from class_get-style exact lookups in the sibling list, despite the minor typo 'classs'.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when the content type is known. It also names the alternative, omnisearch, for the uncertain case. This gives clear selection guidance within a large family of sibling search tools.

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