search_games

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing fuzzy matching behavior and the exact return fields, plus the integration pattern of using the returned id with other tools. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but the schema covers pagination parameters.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence states purpose and return values, and a second sentence gives downstream usage guidance. There is no redundant or filler content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 search tool with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete: it names the search behavior, return fields, and how to use the result. Since there is no output schema, it could have been slightly richer about the response shape, but the listed return fields are sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents the name, limit, and offset parameters. The description adds little about parameter semantics beyond mentioning search by name; it does not elaborate on limit or offset behavior, which is already provided in the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Fuzzy-search games by name.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_users and search_series by specifying games and game-specific return fields (ids, abbreviations, release years). This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 usage when an agent needs to find a game by name, and it explains how to use the returned id/abbreviation with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_series or search_users, nor does it mention exclusions.

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