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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'Returns up to `limit` results', which indicates result limiting, and 'across one or all systems' implying system filtering. However, it lacks details on case-insensitivity (delegated to schema), ordering, or what happens with no results, which prevents a higher score.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, and includes the key behavioral note about result limits. Every word earns its place, with 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 straightforward search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core search behavior, system filtering, and result limiting. It is sufficient for high-level invocation, though it omits details about the exact interpretation of 'all systems' and the return format, which is acceptable given the absence of an output schema.

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 67% with query and system described, but limit lacks a schema description. The description adds meaningful semantics for limit by stating it caps the number of returned results, and for system via 'one or all systems'. This provides value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing limit documentation.

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 the tool searches games by title across one or all systems, with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_game (exact lookup) and list_systems (system listing) by emphasizing title-based search. The phrase 'across one or all systems' adds scope clarity.

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 when to use the tool (searching games by title substring) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tool names suggest get_game is for exact ID lookup, but the description does not reference this distinction, leaving the agent to infer.

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