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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses corpus scale (335 layouts / 34 families), but says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs. fuzzy vs. tag), ranking, pagination, or what a result record contains for a read-only search.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the scale qualifier in parentheses. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter search tool with full schema coverage this is minimally viable. With no output schema, the description could have said what results look like (layout IDs, family names, render references) and how query/limit interact, which would let the agent chain into board_gallery_get.

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% and both parameters (limit, query) are documented with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax, format, or default-override detail beyond what the schema already states.

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) and resource (the board gallery) and adds concrete scope: 335 rendered board layouts across 34 game families. An agent can distinguish it from board_gallery_get and board_gallery_stats by the 'search' verb, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether this is for keyword lookup vs. retrieving a specific board (board_gallery_get) or aggregate counts (board_gallery_stats). The parallel piece_gallery_search and tile_gallery_search siblings are also unaddressed, so the agent must infer selection from the verb alone.

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