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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching, ranked results, and return fields, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or limitations, but 'search' implies a safe read operation and the provided details are adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return format with the hit fields. It also conveys search scope and examples of concepts. The only minor gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough for selection and basic invocation.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a fuzzy text search across all steamwebapi.com OpenAPI endpoints and Steam domain concepts, with specific return fields (path, method, tag, summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_endpoints and get_concept.

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 establishes clear context: use this to find endpoints or concepts via free-text search, rather than enumerating all (list_endpoints) or retrieving a specific one (get_endpoint). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the implied usage is clear.

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