psionic_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 states that the operation is a search and returns a list of matching entries, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose matching semantics (case sensitivity, partial vs. exact) or any potential side effects beyond what the schema already suggests. Some details are in the schema (e.g., 'Name or partial name'), but the description itself is minimal.

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 appropriately sized: three short sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, the return format is stated, and the usage alternative is provided at the end. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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 five well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it identifies the target resource, the input method (by name), and the output shape (a list). It could go slightly further to explicitly mention the read-only nature or default behavior, but since no output schema exists, stating the return type is important and helpful. The absence of a psionic_get sibling makes the list output sufficient for an agent to understand the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'by name', which is already captured by the query parameter description. The schema already documents limit, fields, ruleset, and include_homebrew 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search D&D 5e psionic power or disciplines by name.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like spell_search, monster_search, and omnisearch. The phrase 'Returns a list of matching entries' reinforces its purpose as a search/list operation.

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.' It also provides the alternative for uncertain cases: 'if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead.' This is clear, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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