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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description instead adds the retrieval shape (guide sections with markdown text, guideSlug, anchor, url) and the game-slug resolution requirement. It does not mention result limits, ranking, or behavior when no game slug matches, which are the remaining operational unknowns.

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 tool's identity, then usage triggers, then the workflow, then parameters - a sensible order with no filler. The sentence describing return fields is redundant given an output schema exists, which is the main wasted clause.

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 read-only search with three parameters and an output schema, this covers the full call path: when to invoke, how to prepare the game argument, what query holds, and which locale to send. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Goes beyond the schema for the two parameters that matter most: game is not just a slug but one that must come from a prior find_game lookup matching exactly one title, and query is defined as the question or topic rather than free text. The locale note largely restates the schema's own description, including the pt/pt-BR mapping, so not all of it is additive.

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 GAMES.GG guides") and enumerates the question types it covers, which makes its intent unambiguous. It clarifies how it relates to find_game as a prerequisite, but never contrasts itself with read_guide or search_editorial, which are the genuinely confusable 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?

Explicit triggers are listed (how do I, walkthrough, boss fight, location, unlock, strategy), plus a concrete two-step protocol: resolve the title alone with find_game first, then pass the slug of the single matching game. The locale instruction ('Always pass the user's language') removes any ambiguity about defaulting.

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