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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds behavior they cannot: results are capped at the 10 most popular matches, the cap can be escaped only by narrowing filters, and filters are conjunctive. It does not describe the shape of each returned match, but the result-limit disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the subject domain is front-loaded before the filter and result-limit mechanics. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers domain, filter combination, and the result cap, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying what a returned match contains, so the agent must probe to learn the return fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by stating cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express (every filter optional, multiple filters AND-ed together). It adds no per-parameter syntax detail, but none is needed given the schema.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Find board games in the Kallax.io catalogue,' which tells the agent exactly what domain is queried. It does not differentiate from the sibling search_collection, which plausibly also searches games, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

States that all filters are optional and combined with AND, and gives a concrete corrective action ('narrow the filters to see others') when the 10-result cap hides desired items. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus search_collection, so it stops short of a 5.

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