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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's added value is real: it discloses pagination (20 results per page), the data asymmetry between PC and console results, and a prompt-injection caution about operator-controlled strings. It stops short of rate limits or error behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and coverage first, then the platform-dependent data contract, then the untrusted-data warning. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 13-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: platform scope, per-platform result shape, pagination, and injection safety. Gaps remain around default behavior with no filters, tag combination logic, and result ordering, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 77%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the 'PC only' constraints. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the platform choice changes result richness (PC returns live player count, queue, version, perspective, time acceleration, address; consoles only listed details) and by documenting the 20-per-page page size.

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 and resource (search DayZ community servers) plus the scope of coverage (dzpage.com list, PC/PlayStation/Xbox), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_items or get_infected. An agent can tell what this retrieves and from where without opening the schema.

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 implies when the tool is useful (finding DayZ servers, and by extension when PC-only filters apply), but it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not conditions. Nothing routes the agent to or away from this tool versus the other search/lookup siblings.

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