search_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/exploratory profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior—fuzzy matching and the series-groups-games relationship—but does not describe sorting, pagination, or return shape. This is acceptable given the annotations and simple search tool.

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 concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the series model and pointing to the next step. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only search tool with one required parameter and optional limit/offset, the description is sufficient to invoke it and interpret the result (returned id → get_series). A note about the return value structure would make it complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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 all three parameters. The description reinforces that name is a partial/fuzzy title, but it adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('fuzzy-search') and resource ('game series') with concrete examples ('Mario', 'Zelda'). It clearly distinguishes itself from search_games at the resource level and connects to get_series as the natural follow-up.

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 provides clear task context: use search_series to find a series, then pass the returned id to get_series to list contained games. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for searching individual games), so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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