object_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns a list of matching entries and that matching is name-based, but it does not disclose behavior such as partial-match semantics, ordering, no-result behavior, or how the ruleset/homebrew toggles interact. These are mostly covered by the schema, but the description itself adds only minimal behavioral context.

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, with the core operation and output first, followed by routing guidance. No redundant or filler words; every sentence contributes.

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 simple search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers selection (object vs omnisearch) and basic output. The lack of an output schema means return-entry shape is unspecified, but the description at least says a list of matches is returned, and the parameter details are fully in the 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?

Input schema covers 100% of the 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name' restates the query parameter's meaning and adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('D&D 5e objects'), and a scoping method ('by name'), and the second sentence ('Returns a list of matching entries') confirms the output. The closing sentence differentiates it from omnisearch, and the resource name distinguishes it from the type-specific sibling searches.

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 an explicit usage condition ('Use when you know the content type') and an explicit alternative for the uncertain case ('if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead'). It does not explicitly point to the per-type sibling searches, but the condition plus tool name makes the intended selection reasonably clear.

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