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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: a two-tier retrieval strategy that prefers editorial picks and silently broadens to all public items only on empty picks, which tells the agent results may widen without the query changing.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scope and query-type constraint is front-loaded and the fallback behavior follows immediately, so an agent gets the essentials in the first 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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, temporal scope, accepted inputs, and the retrieval fallback. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters given six similarly named get_* tools in the same namespace.

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 q, limit, window, and category are all self-documented, making 3 the baseline. The description only adds the interpretation of q (topic, company, product, or person) and restates the 2–200 character bound and 7-day default already present in the schema; it says nothing about limit or category semantics.

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 (Search) and resource (Gameshot items), plus the scope constraint (latest 7 days) and accepted query types (topic, company, product, person). It does not name or contrast itself with any of the six sibling get_* tools, which is the one thing keeping it from a 5.

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 explains the internal fallback ('searches editorial picks first and automatically expands to all public items only when picks have no result'), which is useful routing context. However, it never says when an agent should choose gameshot_search over gameshot_get_latest, gameshot_get_weekly, or gameshot_get_hot_topics, so selection guidance is only implied.

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