Find filter slugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: each hit returns slug, name and a usage count, and results are ordered by size when no `query` is given — ordering logic the agent cannot infer from the schema. It says nothing about rate limits or total result caps, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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: the first defines the lookup space, the second gives the call site and the payload/ordering contract. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns and when to call it) is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so compactly (slug, name, counts). Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only pagination beyond `limit` remains unaddressed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining the semantics of omitting `query` (the most-used entities come back first), which is not something the schema's 'default: null' conveys. It does not elaborate on `limit` or the fuzzy-match behavior of partial names, so it is not exhaustive.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the slug of a platform, genre, developer, publisher, film person or studio, or an article topic tag.' It enumerates the entity kinds covered, matching the enum in the schema, and the title 'Find filter slugs' reinforces a resolvable, distinct purpose versus the record-fetching siblings (gf_games, gf_films, gf_article).

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?

It explicitly names the downstream consumers ('Use before gf_games, gf_films or the `tag` filter of the article tools') and the triggering condition ('when you only know a name'). The inverse case — skip this if you already have a slug — is only implied rather than stated, which keeps it just below a full 5.

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