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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing an access-control rule: a game's private cards (Robux, players returning, where players come from) are visible to the owner alone. It also implies the return shape differs by mode, though it doesn't mention size/rate limits.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose well, but the sentence enumerating fifteen game cards (Players, Players returning, Similar games, Key stats...) is a long, dense list that only covers game pages, and the schema already provides example keys. Useful content, but padding that slows an agent scanning for the core instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the abbreviated card format (key, title, first rows) versus the full dataset with a card key, plus the privacy caveat. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches both parameters: it defines what 'card' omission versus presence returns, and it lists concrete card keys. It also restates the accepted page identifier forms (path, link, name, universe id) in prose, reinforcing the schema's guidance.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'The cards a RoTerminal page shows, as data'. It enumerates which page kinds are supported (game, studio, developer, member, genre, word, charts) and which cards a game page carries, which lets an agent recognize the tool's domain. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like game, studio, or charts, so it falls short of 5.

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 branching guidance: 'Without card: every card in short... With card (a key from that list): that card whole, as a dataset.' That tells the agent exactly how to choose between the two calling modes. It still offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over siblings such as game or charts, nor any exclusions.

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