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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: result cap of 10, best-first ordering, and the shape of each match (type, title, subtitle, url). It says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only search that is minor.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then examples, then coverage scope, then the result contract, then routing rules – a sensible order with no filler. It is on the verbose side for a two-parameter tool, with three inline example queries that are helpful but not strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return payload and ordering. For a simple two-parameter, read-only search with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to select or invoke it 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 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description goes further: it explains that `type` restricts to one kind and effectively restates the enum in human terms, and it supplies example query strings that map onto the schema's own examples. This adds useful framing beyond the raw field docs.

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 ('Look up anything pinball on Kineticist') and enumerates the entity types it covers: games, articles, locations, manufacturers, people, mods, Hype Index entries, creators. It explicitly separates itself from siblings get_game_details and get, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

Gives concrete invocation examples, an explicit narrowing rule ('Pass `type` to look in one kind only'), and a routing rule: use get_game_details for game details, pass any other result's url to `get`. When-to-use and which-alternative are both spelled out.

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