find_universes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that scanning many groups takes multiple requests, how throttling manifests (empty result with errors), and that errors are reported rather than silently omitted. It also discloses that results are cached for 6 hours and that default behavior includes group games, which helps set expectations for network load and freshness.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear paragraphs and front-loaded primary purpose. It uses concise, informative sentences. The only minor room for improvement is that the third paragraph about errors and throttling is somewhat technical but is appropriately placed at the end, and the description is detailed enough to warrant its length for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the default behavior, the implications of omitting arguments (who the key belongs to), the impact of includeGroupGames (speed vs coverage), and how to interpret results (errors field indicates throttling). The lack of an output schema is compensated by describing that errors are reported and empty results with errors indicate throttling.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior when parameters are omitted (e.g., includeGroupGames defaults true, search is optional but ranking is by lifetime visits), and the refresh parameter's purpose (re-fetch after publishing). It does not repeat parameter definitions but contextualizes them.

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 clearly states the tool finds universe IDs for experiences by name or creator. It specifies the primary use case and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_universe_info and get_place_info, which likely focus on individual universe/place details rather than discovery.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use with no arguments (identifies API key owner's account and groups), when to add 'search' (filter by name, with ranking insight), and how to target specific users or groups via username/userId/groupId. It also explains the includeGroupGames parameter for tuning scope, and clarifies that a personal-account-only search might miss studio titles, recommending the default behavior.

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