subclass_search

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

With no annotations to indicate safety or side effects, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly establishes this as a read-only name-based search that returns a list, which is the essential behavioral contract. It does not detail matching nuances or default filtering, but nothing in the description hides surprising side effects.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by a valuable usage-routing instruction that 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?

For a list-search tool with a well-described schema and an explicit alternative for uncertain cases, the description covers the essential invocation context. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the statement that this returns a list of matching entries and by the fields parameter documentation.

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?

The input schema fully documents all six parameters with descriptions, and the description adds little beyond the schema beyond reinforcing that the search is by name. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the semantic heavy lifting for the parameters.

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'), a concrete resource ('D&D 5e subclass or archetypes'), and the matching criterion ('by name'). It also notes the return shape as a list of matching entries, which distinguishes it from single-result tools like subclass_get and from broader searches like omnisearch.

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 ('when you know the content type') and names the alternative to use otherwise ('if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead'). This is clear routing guidance that prevents misuse among many sibling search tools.

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