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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false) and open-world/idempotency, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely non-structured behavior: LLM-backed, slow, and rate-limited, which an agent needs to avoid over-calling. It does not quantify the rate limit or expected latency, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences: capability first, then return shape, then the cost/rate-limit constraint and usage rule. No filler; every sentence carries decision-relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return shape (ranked candidates with reasons). Combined with annotations covering safety and the text covering latency/rate limits and when-to-use, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 50%: 'description' is documented in the schema, while 'lang' is only an en/ru enum with a default and no description. The description reinforces what to put in 'description' (what the user remembers) but adds nothing about language handling, so it sits at the baseline for this coverage level.

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 + resource ('Identify a game') and enumerates the input modality (plot, look, platform, era), plus the return shape (ranked candidates with a reason each). It does not, however, name or contrast with the siblings game_facts or games_like, so the agent must infer the boundary between finding a game and getting facts about one.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'use it only when the user does not know the title.' That is a clear selection condition. It stops short of naming the alternative tool for the known-title case, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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