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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it delivers useful behavioral detail: every source was opened and read before being described, each result reveals what it lets you find, who owns it, and what it costs, and results are explicitly 'not ranked or scored'. This meaningfully informs an agent about the curation and output behavior beyond the name or schema.

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 three dense sentences with no filler: it states scope, curation quality, output contents, and the central usage framing. Every sentence earns its place and the main verb-and-resource statement is front-loaded.

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 rich schema (7 parameters, detailed enums and descriptions) and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool returns at a high level and what kind of query it answers. It could add more about response shape or pagination, but the schema already covers limiting, and the directory/facts framing is enough for selection and invocation.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail. The description adds context about the collection's scope but no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema enumerates, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search 873 curated sources on the video games industry') and immediately scopes the content by enumerating outlet types and markets. It also distinguishes itself from a facts tool by explicitly saying 'it is a directory of sources, not a source of facts', which sharply separates it from likely siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: when the question is 'where would I look for this?' and when the user needs a directory rather than facts. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the facts exclusion, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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