monster_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is a read-only name search returning a list, but it does not mention behavior like the default return shape, the potentially large all-fields payload, or ordering/pagination traits. Basic transparency is present, but the description is thin on behavioral detail.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The routing guidance earns its place in the final sentence without bloating the definition.

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 tool with eight well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the return kind and the key alternative. A small gap is that it does not hint at response size or the impact of the fields parameter, but the schema already covers the parameter-level details.

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 schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description adds only the 'by name' framing, which modestly clarifies the query parameter, but does not go beyond the schema's existing coverage.

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 action ('Search D&D 5e monster or creatures by name') and a concrete outcome ('Returns a list of matching entries'). It also distinguishes the tool from omnisearch, making its scope immediately clear.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use when you know the content type') and when not to, directing it to omnisearch instead. This is clear, actionable routing guidance.

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