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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry dolfdarts.com URLs and the corpus size, which is useful, but says nothing about result ranking, empty-result behavior, or ordering.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, parenthetically lists filters, and closes with the return value. No waste; only slightly dense with the parenthetical.

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 no output schema, the description correctly notes what is returned (matching games with URLs). For a read-only search with fully documented parameters, that is nearly complete; ranking and empty-result handling are the only minor omissions.

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%, and the schema already documents every filter's semantics (including playerCount's min ≤ n ≤ max and boardType's rarity note). The description merely restates the filter names, adding no semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 (search the DolfDarts encyclopedia of dart games) plus the query mechanism and scope (201 games). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_games or recommend_games, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which entry point to pick.

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?

Implies usage by noting that filters are optional and a text query is required, which suggests 'use when you have a keyword.' However, it never says when to prefer this over list_games, browse_taxonomy, or recommend_games, nor any exclusions.

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