trap_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the result is a list and that matching is by name. However, it does not mention default ruleset behavior, homebrew inclusion, or partial-match semantics beyond what the schema already states. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the return shape and a concise routing rule.

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, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, and return shape. Optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. The lack of an output schema means exact result fields are not described, but the 'fields' parameter and the generic 'list of matching entries' statement make this largely sufficient.

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 all five parameters. The description only reinforces that 'query' is a name or partial name; it adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource category ('D&D 5e trap or hazards'), and a matching mode ('by name'). It also states the return shape ('a list of matching entries'), which distinguishes it from single-result get tools and from the broader 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when the content type is known. It also names the alternative (omnisearch) and the condition for choosing it ('if unsure of the type'), giving a clear when/when-not decision rule.

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