Search games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral details: include_my_status costs one extra request for the whole result set and reports your own rating/shelf, which involves user-specific data. This goes beyond annotations and schema, improving transparency. It lacks pagination details but provides meaningful context.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, no redundant language. Each sentence adds information: purpose, return fields, and optional behavior with cost. Efficiently structured without waste.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description covers return fields, the optional include_my_status behavior, and its cost. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but limit is in the schema. Annotations cover safety. Adequately complete, though not exhaustive.

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 covers query and include_my_status but not limit (67% coverage). The description adds meaning to include_my_status by explaining the extra-request cost and the returned fields (rating, shelf). It does not explain limit, but limit's constraints are self-explanatory from the schema. Overall, the description enhances parameter understanding.

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 states 'Search Backloggd's game catalogue by title' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also lists returned fields (id, slug, year, platforms, category), which distinguishes it from broader browsing tools like browse_games. This is a clear and specific purpose statement.

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 implies usage for title-based searches of the global catalogue, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over browse_games or query_library, so it lacks explicit exclusions. Clear enough for basic usage.

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