search_maps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that this is a search/filter operation whose results can feed get_leaderboard, but discloses no additional behavioral traits beyond that. No contradiction with 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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action and filter dimensions are front-loaded, and the downstream integration note earns its place.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, this definition is lean: it covers the main search facets and a chaining hint, but omits return shape, usage boundaries, and clarification of sort/pagination/context parameters. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 6%, so the description must compensate for 18 parameters. It maps common filter categories to parameter groups (e.g., 'stars' → starsFrom/starsTo, 'Acc/Pass/Tech ratings' → rating bounds), but leaves many parameters only implied or undocumented, such as difficulty, context, sort, page, count, and order.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search leaderboard difficulties'. It then enumerates the main filter dimensions (song, ranked status, stars, Acc/Pass/Tech ratings, mode, mapper IDs), which makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_leaderboard or search_players.

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 closing note 'Results can be passed to get_leaderboard' provides useful pipeline context, implying this is a discovery/pre-filter step before retrieving a specific leaderboard. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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