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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the data that comes back, but says nothing about pagination, ordering defaults, or result caps beyond what the schema shows.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It is efficiently sized, though words are spent on enumerating return fields rather than on selection guidance.

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 the description need not have enumerated rankings and playtime metrics; that budget would have been better spent on the four filter parameters it never explains. For a five-parameter search at 20% schema coverage, the definition leaves the agent guessing about how to actually shape a query.

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 only 20% across five parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions query, kind, sort, limit, or jam semantics. Opaque enum values like 'change24h', 'score', and 'servers' are left unexplained in both places.

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 ('Find') plus a concrete, scoped resource ('public s&box games, maps, or libraries'), which an agent can distinguish from the singular get_package sibling. It also names the domain-specific content returned (rankings, playtime, jam membership), so the tool's role in the ecosystem is unambiguous.

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 never says when to use this tool versus get_package, search_servers, or search_organizations; it only restates what the search finds. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or disambiguation cues, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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