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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds a scope boundary — no account, no private games, no credentials — which tells the agent this is public unauthenticated data. It stops short of disclosing pagination, default page size, or result ordering.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the scope constraint second; no filler or restatement of the title. Slightly compact at the cost of omitting parameter guidance that would have earned its place.

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 three optional parameters, an enum, a limit cap, and no output schema, the description should explain category filtering and the meaning of limit/results. It instead only gestures at 'search' and catalog status, leaving an agent to open the schema to understand two-thirds of the inputs.

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 only 33%: only 'query' is documented, while 'limit' (default 20, max 50) and 'category' (enum of four values) carry no textual explanation. The description mentions nothing about category filtering, result caps, or pagination, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('public game catalog') and adds a secondary dimension ('playable or coming-soon status'). This clearly separates it from get_documentation and get_rankings, though it doesn't state that this is a list/discovery endpoint returning multiple games.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search the public game catalog' — an agent can infer it is the discovery entry point. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the siblings, nor any note about pagination, ordering, or result-set behavior when the limit is exhausted.

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