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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: spoiler results are omitted by default, hint_only returns neutral hint links instead of ordinary excerpts, and pagination is capped inside the top 30 ranked matches. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured annotation data.

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 core action and resource, then layered with return shape, hint_only behavior, spoiler default and pagination. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; no filler sentences.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents (titles, excerpts, canonical URLs), the hint mode, spoiler handling and pagination bounds. The only omission is limit semantics, so an agent has nearly everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it explains query, the game slug, hint_only=true semantics, the spoiler default, and the offset range ('within the top 30 ranked matches', matching offset max 29). Only limit (default 8, max 15) is left undocumented, which is a modest gap given the otherwise strong compensation.

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: searching kingy.wiki game guides, recipes and reference pages, with the query and optional game slug named. It clearly separates this from a fetch-by-id tool conceptually, but it never names the siblings (get_guide, get_hint, list_wikis) to draw the boundary 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?

Usage is implied through the query/game inputs and the hint_only switch, which suggests when the hint mode is appropriate. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use search_guides versus get_guide, get_hint or list_wikis, and no when-not guidance.

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