search_roms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful pagination behavior ('Compact pages; follow next_offset'), but does not explain what 'compact' omits or how the result set behaves across pages.

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 terse sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the pagination instruction. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

With six parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin to call the tool correctly without opening the schema. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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 carries the burden, and it does loosely map four of six parameters (query→title, platform_ids→platform, collection_id→collection, has_ra→RA). However, limit and offset semantics are only hinted at by 'next_offset', and the query string format is never explained.

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 verb (Search) and resource (ROMs) and enumerates the dimensions searchable — title, platform, collection, RA. This clearly separates it from list_platforms, list_collections, and get_rom, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools an agent should prefer for unfiltered listings. The agent must infer that this is the tool for filtered ROM lookup.

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