search_all

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

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the search scope and provides examples; it does not disclose what the returned results look like, whether limit applies per system or across all results, or any other behavioral traits.

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 one short, efficient sentence that front-loads the key fact—the all-systems scope—and uses examples to clarify the resource types. No wasted words.

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 a large sibling list, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. An agent knows this searches broadly, but not enough about result structure, limit semantics, or how this tool differs from the many related lookup/search siblings to use it with full confidence.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented query and limit parameters. It adds only that searching covers game systems; it gives no detail about query syntax, matching behavior, or how the limit parameter behaves.

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 names a specific action (Search) and an exact resource (ALL 28 game systems at once), with a clear list of example domains. It distinguishes itself from narrower sibling lookup tools and makes its broad scope immediately obvious.

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 'across ALL 28 game systems at once' phrasing implies this is the tool for broad, cross-system search rather than a single-system lookup. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names an alternative such as search_game_data for narrower searches, leaving some routing to inference.

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