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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: result cap of 20, the fields returned, and the important policy that adult-only titles are never returned. Minor gap: no pagination/offset behavior is mentioned.

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 tight sentences that front-load purpose, then returns, then next-step routing. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant with the title.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields in detail, and it still summarizes them. Combined with full schema coverage, annotated safety hints, and the adult-content exclusion policy, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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%, so both `query` and `limit` are already documented with types, bounds, and defaults. The description adds example query strings ('cozy farming', 'soulslike') that illustrate the tag-matching intent, but nothing beyond the schema on the limit parameter.

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 (Search/Find) and resource (Steam games) plus the query forms accepted (name or genre/tag words) with concrete examples. It is clearly distinct from fetch, which it calls out, but it gives no signal on how it differs from the sibling find_games or new_games, leaving one differentiation gap.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use fetch with a result's id for the full record,' which tells the agent when this tool is sufficient and when to escalate. It does not explain when to prefer this over find_games or new_games, so the sibling-choice guidance is incomplete.

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