search_game_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the broad scope and the output shape, which is useful. It does not mention performance implications of searching 182 tables, ordering, pagination, or whether results are read-only, though 'search' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the essential scope and output information with no filler. The most important fact (searching all tables) is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated immediately.

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 low-complexity tool with only one required parameter, the description is largely sufficient: it names the search scope and the output. The main gaps are lack of explicit parameter semantics and absence of any note about result limits or performance, but the schema partially fills the limit default and the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explicitly explain that 'query' is the search text or describe how 'limit' affects results. The full-text search phrasing makes the query parameter inferable, but the limit parameter and any query syntax expectations are left to the schema alone.

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?

Describes a specific action ('full-text search') with a clear resource scope ('ALL 182 game tables') and a concrete result ('Returns matching rows with their table name'). This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like get_hero or list_heroes, which target specific tables or entities.

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 this is the right tool when you need to search across the entire game dataset rather than retrieving a known entity from a specific table. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it relates to the targeted sibling tools, so the agent must infer the intended use case.

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