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

The annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that results are limited to *public* organizations publishing specific content types, which is behavioral scope 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler or repetition of schema data. Efficient and immediately scannable.

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?

The description covers the general search purpose but omits how result matching works fro query or what the sort enums mean (`players`, `games`). With all parameters optional and an output schema likely present, the agent can still call it, but there is a gap between 'can call' and 'can call confidently with correct parameters'.

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 for parameters is minimal (only names, types, defaults, max). The description does not clarify what `query` matches (name? description?), what `sort` order values mean (e.g., 'players', 'updated'), or how the default behaves. With 3 parameters and low schema description coverage, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and names its target resource ('studios, teams, and creators') plus the scope ('publishing public s&box games, maps, or libraries'). An agent knows exactly what this tool returns and what sort of content it covers.

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 makes the intended search use clear, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over related tools (e.g., a direct organization lookup). It does not state exclusions or common search patterns, so it stops at adequate rather than directing usage.

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