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, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only operation, what the resolved output contains, whether it is a transform of another tool's output, or any auth/pagination behavior. A one-line phrase cannot support a 5-parameter tool with zero structured hints.

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 single four-word phrase is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is undersized for a tool with five parameters and ambiguous semantics. Efficiency is fine; sufficiency for the tool's complexity is not.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context — and it supplies none. An agent cannot determine what a "resolved" result is or when this tool beats the sibling "resolve" or the per-entity search tools.

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 each parameter (maps, clans, tanks, players, region) is already documented in the schema as comma-separated ID lists. The description adds nothing beyond that, which matches the baseline-3 rule when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"Resolve saved search entries" largely restates the tool name (search_resolve) without explaining what resolving actually does — entity lookup? ID expansion? Saved-query execution? A sibling named "resolve" also exists, and nothing here distinguishes the two.

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, no alternative named, and no indication of how this relates to the many *_search siblings (maps_search, players_search, tanks_search, clans_search). The agent is left to infer everything.

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