Search Open Play docs

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.