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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real value on top: the returned fields, the instruction to link each game's kineticist.com page when citing, and the caveat that newest_edition_year is not the year production ended. It omits pagination behavior, which the limit parameter partially implies.

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 and examples before the field semantics, and every sentence carries information. It is somewhat dense and the parameter caveats at the end run together, but there is little waste.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing returns (names, slugs, manufacturers, fun scores, edition counts, page URLs) and adds the citation instruction and field-semantics caveat. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that in_production means 'machines Kineticist lists as currently made' rather than an objective production fact. It also explains the newest_edition_year field semantics, which sharpens interpretation of the year filters.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Find pinball machines') and backs it with three realistic example queries plus an explicit statement that it searches and filters the Kineticist pinball database. The multi-result, filter-oriented scope is clearly distinguishable from detail-fetch siblings like get_game_details.

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 example queries give clear context for when this tool applies ('what Stern machines are in production right now?', 'pinball games from 1992'), and the in_production filter is tied to a concrete use case. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it is context-rich but not fully prescriptive.

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