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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result cap (up to 20 matches) and the returned fields (id, title, slug). It does not say how matching works (exact vs fuzzy) or what a zero-match response looks like, but the annotation-backed baseline is met comfortably.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the ordering is deliberate: what it does first, then when to call it and where the output goes. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the return shape and cap. For a one-parameter search tool the coverage is nearly complete; only edge behavior (no matches, ambiguous titles) is unaddressed.

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 the single query parameter is already documented as 'Game title or part of it, 2-100 characters', which covers partial matching and length bounds. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented single parameter is correct.

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 (find) plus resource (PC game by title) and the concrete outcome (get its id). It explicitly separates itself from the siblings by naming the downstream tools it feeds (get_cheapest_way_to_play, get_offers, is_on_subscription), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Call this FIRST when the user names a game but you do not have its Steam AppID or igdb id') and an explicit next step ('then pass the id to ...'). The when-to-use and the alternatives are both stated rather than implied.

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