rawg_search_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result limits, pagination, rate limits, or whether api_key is required for this call.

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 no filler or redundancy. It earns its place but is so terse that the terseness itself is the problem, which is penalized under completeness rather than here.

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 6-parameter search tool with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It lacks any indication of filter syntax, result shape, pagination behavior, or why an api_key parameter exists, leaving the agent to guess at most call details.

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 only 17% — just the 'search' field has a (tautological) description, while genres, platforms, ordering, page_size, and api_key are undocumented. The description only implies keyword search and says nothing about the five filter/pagination/credential parameters that an accurate call requires.

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 (search) and resource (video games) plus the data source (RAWG), which is enough to separate it from rawg_get_game and rawg_list_genres. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus rawg_get_game, rawg_upcoming_games, or igdb_search_games, and no mention of what the search does or does not cover. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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