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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully covers the return payload (signature, summary, members) and the matching semantics, but it says nothing about behavior on an unknown name (error vs empty result), whether lookup is read-only, or what 'members' contains for a function versus a type.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload described first and the matching rules second. Nothing is redundant and no clause could be cut without losing information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how the key is matched, and how to address members. The only gap is failure behavior for a missing symbol, which is minor at this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: name is matched exactly and case-insensitively, and a nested member can be addressed via the 'Type.Member' syntax. The sdk enum is already fully documented in the schema, so only the name semantics benefit from the description.

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 verb and resource — 'Returns one SDK type or function' — plus what comes back (signature, summary, members). It is clearly a single-symbol lookup rather than a search, which differentiates it in spirit from search_sdk, though it never names that 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?

Usage is only implied: the exact, case-insensitive matching rule signals that the caller must already know the symbol name, which in turn implies search_sdk is the right tool when the name is unknown. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to the alternative tool.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape at a high level (ids and titles only, not page bodies), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result limits, or whether the listing is complete across all sections.

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 the core behavior first and the optional filter second. The parenthetical list of all nine section values duplicates the schema enum and is the one element that does not earn 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 a two-optional-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the filterable dimension, and the shape of the returned data. Ordering and pagination behavior are the main omissions, but they are minor for a simple index tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's enumeration of section values simply repeats the enum. The 'lang' parameter is never mentioned in the description at all, though the schema covers it adequately, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists documentation page ids and titles') and adds the scope qualifier of an optional section filter, so the agent knows this is a lightweight index rather than a content fetch. It does not name the sibling search_docs or read_doc, so differentiation must be inferred from the word 'ids and titles'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'optionally for one section' suggests browsing or enumerating pages, which contrasts implicitly with searching (search_docs) and reading (read_doc). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on choosing between listing and searching.

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

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the 40,000-character truncation behavior and that a link to the full page is provided. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid ids, permissions, or language fallback, but for a straightforward read tool the key behavioral caveat is 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose and the truncation caveat are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, id provenance, return format, and truncation. The remaining parameter detail is fully handled by the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the lang enum and default. The description adds a little meaning by giving page id examples and their source, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: it returns the full markdown of one documentation page by id. Naming the id source (search_docs or list_docs) and giving example ids makes it clearly distinct from the sibling search/list tools.

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?

It tells the agent when this tool applies by explaining that page ids come from search_docs or list_docs, which implies the retrieve-after-search workflow. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative retrieval path, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description still conveys a non-mutating documentation search and discloses the result shape: best-matching pages, short descriptions, and public URLs. It does not detail ranking or failure behavior, but those omissions are modest for a simple search tool.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action and scope, then describe outputs and the follow-up workflow. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information without 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?

For a simple three-parameter search tool with a fully documented input schema and no output schema, the description supplies the documentation scope, returned fields, and next tool to use. That is sufficient for correct selection and invocation, with only minor sibling-routing 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 coverage is 100%, and query, lang, and limit already have examples, defaults, enum values, and bounds. The description's topic examples clarify the searchable content but add no parameter semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: searching the official Open Play developer documentation, with representative topics establishing scope. The instruction to follow up with read_doc also distinguishes page discovery from full-document retrieval.

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 topic list clarifies appropriate documentation queries, and 'Follow up with read_doc' provides an explicit next step in the workflow. It does not explain when to prefer list_docs or search_sdk, so alternative-based routing remains incomplete.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape at a high level (matching types/functions) and the fields matched against, but says nothing about result ordering, whether matches are fuzzy or exact, or what happens with zero hits — gaps for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The search scope comes first and the sibling hand-off comes last, which is the correct front-loading for a search 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends words on what is returned (matching types/functions). For a simple three-parameter read-only search this is close to sufficient; only match-quality/ranking behavior is left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning by saying the query matches against symbol name, member name, signature and summary — information the schema does not contain — which tells an agent it can search by partial signature or doc-summary text, not just identifiers.

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 gives a specific verb (searches) plus a clearly bounded resource: the public API of the TypeScript SDK (@ferdiunal/open-play-ts) and the Unity C# SDK. It also scopes matching to symbol name, member name, signature and summary, which separates it from the doc-oriented siblings and explicitly hands off to get_sdk_symbol.

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?

It states the routing rule to get_sdk_symbol for full details, which is the main alternative an agent would confuse it with. It does not distinguish against search_docs (which presumably searches prose documentation rather than API symbols), so there is a small residual ambiguity but the core when-to-use context is present.

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