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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail by describing the return shape (snippet, path, anchor, public URL) and warning that results are 'often enough to answer directly,' implying a possible follow-up read. It does not mention result limits beyond the schema default or any rate/coverage caveats for the search index, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and corpus, then the return shape, then the sibling hand-off, then the alternate listing mode — a logical ordering. The long parenthetical enumerating guide topics is slightly heavy but it earns its place by telling the agent what questions this tool can answer.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the effective one (snippet, path, anchor, URL) and explains how to escalate to read_doc for full text. For a three-optional-parameter read-only search tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret results is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic meaning the schema does not: omitting `query` switches the tool into a list-all-pages mode, and that mode can be narrowed to a single section. This explains the interaction between the two parameters rather than restating them.

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 and resource ('Search Gamebeast's public documentation') and then enumerates the corpus it covers: feature guides, four SDK references, HTTP API reference, changelog, newsletters. This is unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like search_configuration (project data) and read_doc (single-page fetch).

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: 'Call read_doc with a result's path and anchor for the full text' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also documents the non-obvious alternate mode — omit `query` to list every page, optionally scoped to one section — so both the search and browse paths are covered.

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