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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well. It discloses server-side ranking with the specific field weights (title, then tags, then description), and clearly states the return payload contains type, slug, title, and .md URL with no body content. This is genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the input schema and tells the agent what to expect from a call.

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 compact and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states scope and ranking behavior, the second defines the return format and its limitation, and the third routes the follow-up fetching. It is concise without omitting needed details.

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 keyword search tool, the description is sufficient. It explains the ranking, output fields, the absence of body content, and the next-step tools to get full content. It also has no output schema, so the explicit return-shape description compensates well. Pagination is fully covered by the limit parameter.

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 already covers 100% of the parameters, both with solid descriptions, max/min values, and the default limit. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies. It offers no extra parameter meaning beyond what schema provides.

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 begins with a specific verb ('search') and a precise resource scope ('ALL ChangeGamer content (resources and editorial guides)'), making the tool's function clear. It also distinguishes from the narrower sibling search_resources by emphasizing the 'ALL' content scope and by naming the follow-up fetch tools.

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 gives clear usage context: it is a global keyword search over resources and editorial guides, and it directs the agent to use get_resource/get_article for fetching winners. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling search_resources or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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