screenscraper_search_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns game information including system, developer, publisher, and genres, which clarifies the result behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, pagination, or whether the search is exact or fuzzy, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence pair that front-loads the main purpose and then adds the optional filter and return fields. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 search tool with three parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It names the key return fields, but with no output schema it leaves the shape of the result (e.g., list vs. single item, pagination, match scoring) unclear, and it does not guide the agent toward screenscraper_get_game_info for detailed follow-up.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the overall semantics of 'by name' and 'optionally filter by gaming system,' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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-resource pair: 'Search for retro games on ScreenScraper.fr by name.' It also names the optional system filter and the fields returned, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like steam_search_game or screenscraper_get_game_info.

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 implies usage: use it to search by name and optionally filter by system. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over screenscraper_get_game_info or when not to use it, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's hint to use screenscraper_get_systems.

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