Search the Open Play SDK API

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.