table_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 discloses the basic outcome ('Returns a list of matching entries') and scoping ('by name'), implying a read-only search. However, it does not state whether the search is exact/partial, whether official-only by default, or any result-shape details beyond a list. This is minimally adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core scope and return type are front-loaded, and the alternative routing is given in the second sentence. Every word 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 covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it (plus the omnisearch fallback). The schema supplies all parameter semantics. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit return shape would be ideal, but 'a list of matching entries' is sufficient for a search tool.

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% — all five parameters have descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no param-level detail, but the schema already handles it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search'), resource ('D&D 5e random tables'), and method ('by name'). It explicitly names omnisearch as the alternative, and 'random tables' clearly separates it from the many content-type search siblings like spell_search, monster_search, and item_search.

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?

Provides an explicit decision rule: 'Use when you know the content type; if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead.' This directly tells an agent when to invoke this tool and when to choose a sibling tool, leaving no inference required.

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