Search the Gamealia docs

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses that the corpus is bundled locally, that authentication is not required, that search results are locale-sensitive with English fallback, and exactly what a result contains (slug, title, uri, snippet). The read:true escape hatch for fetching top-page markdown is also explained, which the annotations alone could never convey.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by when-to-use and then return behavior — a good information order with no filler sentences. It is dense, packing corpus, permissions, locale behavior, and retrieval paths into two long sentences with several parentheticals, which costs a little readability but wastes no content.

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 3-parameter read-only search, the description covers the corpus, preconditions, locale fallback, result shape, and the follow-up action for full page content. Even though an output schema exists, the description still tells the agent enough to chain a search into a page read without further discovery.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the read:true behavior and the locale fallback rather than adding new semantics — it clarifies that read only returns the *top* page, but the schema's "best match" already implies this.

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 ("Searches the Gamealia developer docs bundled with this server") and enumerates the covered content (SDK reference, publishing requirements, autotest checks, reject reasons, guides). No sibling tool does documentation lookup, so the scope statement alone distinguishes it from the build/test/publish tools in the list.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use it before guessing an SDK call, a policy rule or how to fix a failed check"), which ties directly to the failure modes of sibling tools like gamealia_check_integration or gamealia_run_autotest. It also names the alternative retrieval path (read the resource gamealia://docs/<slug>) and the preconditions (local, read-only, no login needed), so an agent knows when to call it and what to do afterwards.

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