Search games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: no API key required, no unpublished games returned, and the result is paginated with specific fields. This is useful supplementary information even though rate limits and exact response shape are not covered.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds information: scope, searchable fields, authentication requirement, publication filter, and return format. There is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only search tool with six well-documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is searched, what is filtered out, whether authentication is needed, and what the return list contains. An agent has sufficient information to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect.

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 100%, with each parameter documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that query matches title, tagline, and tags but not the description, which is not encoded in the query parameter's schema description. This makes the query parameter's behavior significantly clearer.

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 a specific action ('Search the public arcade') and a specific resource, then clarifies the searchable fields (title, tagline, tags) and what is excluded (not the description). It also says what is returned — a paginated list of game cards with slugs, ids, and public URLs — so an agent can clearly distinguish this from siblings like get_game or top_games.

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 gives clear context: this operates on the public arcade, works without an API key, and only returns published games. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent toward this tool for public searching rather than management-only tools like list_my_games.

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