rawg_search_games

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search' without mentioning authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains. The tool's behavior beyond being a read operation is opaque.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), which sacrifices essential detail. While it is concise in length, it is under-specified and misses key information like parameter meanings, default behavior, and output format. True conciseness should preserve completeness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values but does not. It also fails to document most input parameters. For a search tool with 6 parameters and multiple sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 only 17% (only the 'search' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no information about the other five parameters (genres, platforms, ordering, page_size, api_key). With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 clearly states the action (search) and the resource (video games on RAWG). It is a specific verb+resource pair. While it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rawg_get_game or rawg_upcoming_games, the action 'search' is distinct from 'get' or 'list' operations, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rawg_get_game (for a specific game) or rawg_list_genres (for genre metadata). There are no instructions on prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it.

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