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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it searches across all three games and returns candidates with game, value and page link, and it serves as a disambiguation pre-step. It does not discuss result ordering or limit behavior, which the schema covers instead.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the scope and return are front-loaded, and the usage condition plus sibling routing follow immediately. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does describe the returned candidate fields. Annotations cover safety, the schema covers parameters, and usage plus sequencing against get_value is specified, so an agent has everything needed to select and call it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by framing 'query' as a partial name match spanning all three games, clarifying the substring-search semantics beyond the schema's example strings.

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?

States a specific verb (Finds), resource (items), and scope (across all three games by a partial name), plus what is returned (game, value, page link). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_value by positioning itself as the ambiguous-name step before exact lookup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (the name is ambiguous, misspelled, or could belong to more than one game) and which sibling to route to next ('before asking get_value for the exact one'). Nothing is left to inference.

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