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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, confirming read-only behavior. The description adds value by explaining the search behavior, pagination, and available filters, plus an example. No contradictions.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, parameter list, return fields, and example. It is front-loaded but slightly verbose in places (e.g., repeating schema descriptions). Still concise enough for effective use.

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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters, return object fields, pagination details, and provides an example. This is complete for an agent to understand input and output structure without ambiguity.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining all parameters in detail, including defaults, constraints, and an example. This adds significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool searches the public Legends of Learning game catalog, specifying it is for curriculum-aligned K-12 games in math, science, and social studies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools: legends_browse_standards browses standards and legends_get_game retrieves a specific game, so the search function is distinct.

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 provides detailed parameter explanations and an example, implying appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different needs, such as using legends_get_game for a known game or legends_browse_standards for learning objectives.

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