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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers the key behaviors: substring matching, catalog scope, and that the result includes both app ids and current player counts. It does not mention edge cases like no-results behavior, but the core operation is transparent.

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 two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the return value and relationship to game_detail.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and the essential return shape (app ids, player counts). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention what happens when no games match.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the query parameter. It does this by stating that the query is matched as a substring against game names, adding real semantic meaning beyond the bare string type. Minor details like case sensitivity are not addressed, but the essential meaning is present.

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 ('Find games'), a clear resource ('tracked catalog'), and matching behavior ('by name (substring match)'). It also differentiates from game_detail by noting this tool returns app ids for use with that sibling, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to search the catalog by name and obtain app ids for game_detail. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternative search tools, but the intended workflow is clear enough for the catalog context.

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