search_pulse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about pagination/limit behavior, result ordering, or how substring matching works across name/library.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but that efficiency comes at the cost of any filtering or alternative 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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns or safety. But for a 5-parameter search tool with a limit ceiling of 200 and free-text query, the agent gets no picture of how to narrow results or what the searchable surface is.

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 coverage is 60%, with game, query and library described but kind and limit only carrying enums/defaults. The description partly compensates by naming the input/output/function binding kinds (omitting 'class') and the entity I/O concept, but says nothing about query's substring semantics or library's exact-match filter.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search Pulse node bindings', with the parenthetical defining Pulse as Valve's visual scripting so the agent knows the domain. The scope ('entity inputs/outputs and functions') separates it from sibling lookups like get_schema_class and find_entities_with_io, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this versus find_entities_with_io, get_schema_class, or search_docs, and no prerequisites beyond the required game param. The resource scope implies the context but the description never routes the agent.

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