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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'x402-payable; no PAT required' and states return fields. This adds value but lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or destructive behavior.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loading the core function and use case in the first sentence, and providing return info and access requirements in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the search intent, output fields, and access details. It could mention pagination or error handling, but it's largely complete for a search tool.

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?

The input schema describes 4 out of 5 parameters (80% coverage). The description summarizes the searchable fields ('by name, tag, language, and audience size') but doesn't exceed what the schema already provides. The 'limit' parameter is mentioned by name but not explained.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search PitchIQ's global Steam-curator index by name, tag, language, and audience size'. It specifies the verb (Search), the resource (Steam-curator index), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_creators and search_podcasts.

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?

The description mentions 'for an agent marketing a game/product into a niche', implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like the creator or podcast search tools.

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