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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing the exact return fields (ID, abbreviation, release year, weblink) and the ID's role in other tools, going beyond the minimal annotation-based trust.

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 plus one concrete example, with all information front-loaded and relevant. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return fields, and usage example. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return value (matching games with specific fields) and the context for use (before get_categories/get_leaderboard). Annotations and schema handle the remaining context. No critical gaps remain.

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 parameters are thoroughly documented. The description repeats the example from the schema without adding novel parameter-level semantics. It does clarify the query's purpose through the ID dependency, but this is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Search the Speedrun.com database for games by name') and specifies the output (ID, abbreviation, release year, weblink). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking the ID to get_categories and get_leaderboard, which are sibling 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 provides clear context for using this tool—searching for games by name to obtain IDs for subsequent calls to get_categories and get_leaderboard. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose and context are unambiguous.

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