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

Annotations only declare the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile; the description adds matching tolerance (typos, partial names, Russian names, acronyms) and an important content limitation (adult-only games not covered, filtering best effort). These are behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return fields, then adds usage routing and caveats in three dense sentences with no filler. Slightly packed with parenthetical clauses, but every clause adds needed 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still lists them helpfully. It covers purpose, routing, matching behavior and a content caveat; the only gap is the meaning/limits of the `n` parameter.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: it explains query semantics well (fuzzy/typo/acronym tolerance). However, the `n` result-count parameter is never mentioned, and its bounds only exist as raw schema constraints, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented in prose.

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 (find Steam games by title) and immediately enumerates the returned fields (appid, year, imho.run page, Steam link). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling find_game_by_description, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 concrete use cases ('check which game the user means or to get an appid') and names the alternative for the contrasting case ('For a game the user can only describe, use find_game_by_description'). It even notes that other tools accept names directly, removing the need to call this first.

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