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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower, and the description still contributes real behavioral context: every record carries asOf (UTC export time), source and a completeness grade with a defined A/B/C/D rubric, and revenue is explicitly a range-based estimate with a grade, never measured sales. The pointer to wieldr://methodology for definitions is a useful escape hatch. Minor gap: nothing about pagination or what happens when a game is not found.

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 body is essentially one very long run-on sentence enumerating a dozen-plus return fields — content that an output schema already carries, since one exists. Because the enumeration is buried mid-sentence, the genuinely load-bearing parts (estimate caveat, grade rubric) are hard to find. It would be far stronger as three short lines: purpose, input resolution, estimate disclaimer.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly, and the estimate-grade caveats plus the asOf/source framing give the right epistemic posture toward the numbers. The only shortfall is on the selection side, where the sibling landscape is left unaddressed.

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% and both parameters are documented in detail there, including the id format examples and the platform enum, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces accepted inputs (id, Fortnite island code, title) but adds no semantics the schema lacks, and its field list describes outputs rather than inputs.

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?

"Full record of one game" states a specific verb-and-resource pair, and the enumeration of covered platforms and data points (players online, revenue range, robloxStructure, fortnite) makes the scope unambiguous. It stops short of naming a sibling — nothing distinguishes it explicitly from get_game_history or compare_games — so an agent must infer that this is the single-game snapshot and those are the time-series/comparison variants.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource shape (one game, full record) rather than stated; there is no "use this when… use X instead when…" routing despite eleven siblings including a near-neighbor in get_game_history. The one genuinely useful usage hint is about input resolution — a title resolves to the most played match with other matches listed — which tells the agent how to disambiguate a fuzzy input but not when to pick this tool.

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