search_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the function and the output (UUIDs), but doesn't elaborate on specifics like result limits, partial-match behavior, or potential errors. For a read-only search tool, this level of transparency is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and output format (UUIDs). While it could mention edge cases or response structure, the low complexity means the description is complete enough for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter with examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond referring to it as a 'title query,' so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('IsThereAnyDeal'), and the outcome ('get their internal ITAD UUIDs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lookup_game' by focusing on title-based search rather than direct UUID lookup, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 when you have a game title and need UUIDs, but it provides no explicit context about when to choose this over sibling tools or any exclusions. There's no guidance on prerequisites or workflow, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description.

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