deity_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately states that the tool searches by name and returns matching entries, which implies a read-only search. However, it does not disclose matching semantics such as partial matching, default ruleset behavior, or how results are ordered, leaving some room for misinterpretation.

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 wasted words. The primary action and result are front-loaded, and the alternative routing is placed in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a search tool with fully documented parameters: it states what it searches, what it returns, and when to use an alternative. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'returns a list of matching entries.' It could mention result behavior like limit or default ruleset, but those are already covered in the input schema.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description's mention of searching 'by name' aligns with the 'query' parameter but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search D&D 5e deity or gods by name' and states the output shape: 'Returns a list of matching entries.' This clearly differentiates it from content-get tools and other content-type searches in the sibling 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when you know the content type; if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead.' This names the alternative tool and gives a concrete condition for choosing between them, so an agent does not have to infer usage.

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