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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds what the call yields ('names, short descriptions and links'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not disclose result count limits, ranking, or pagination, and the 'leave empty to list everything' behaviour is stated only in the schema, not here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scope, then return shape, then the routing instruction. Every clause contributes; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, coverage area, return contents and intended use. Only minor operational details (how many results, ordering, whether a richer result is available) are absent, which is a small gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the single query parameter is fully documented there, including a concrete example ('remove checkerboard background') and the empty-string case. The description adds no additional meaning about query syntax, matching behaviour, or result breadth, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the GameShipKit catalogue of browser tools for game developers') and enumerates the covered domains (sprites, AI art cleanup, audio, store assets, economy, dialogue, rigging). This is plainly a discovery/retrieval tool, which distinguishes it at a glance from the concrete sibling utilities app_ads_txt, palette, store_link and xp_curve.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use it to point the user to the right tool for a task,' which establishes it as the routing tool when the right concrete tool is unknown. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as the destination or saying when not to search (e.g. when the user already named a specific tool).

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