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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the ordering rationale ('ordered by lifetime estimated exposure of creatives active in the last 30 days') and clarifies a semantic nuance ('This is a delivery-heat reference, not incremental exposure'), which adds important context. It does not mention safety permissions or side effects, but for a read-only resolve operation, these are less critical.

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 sentences that are tight and front-loaded: the first gives the core action and resources; the second summarizes the output and ordering plus a clarifying caveat. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the necessary essentials: it inputs an identifier, outputs all matching regional editions (tokens/identity), and clarifies ordering overload. It does not detail the exact response shape, but for a resolver it provides enough functional context.

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?

The description reinforces the identifier type ('Android package name or numeric iOS app ID') but does not go beyond the schema’s parameter descriptions. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and no additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'resolve' with clear inputs ('Android package name or numeric iOS app ID') and outputs ('game tokens and identity'), and further specifies behavior ('return all matching regional editions'). This reliably distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_games or get_game_detail, which handle different lookup patterns.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a platform identifier rather than a token or name) but does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tools or state when NOT to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the usage context is clear but not explicit.

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