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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral aspect: the tool is paid ($0.005 via x402). It also implies a read-only metadata lookup. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or response format quirks, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise, using two sentences to convey the tool's purpose and cost. It is front-loaded with the core function and includes the essential payment detail without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one string parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview by listing the types of metadata returned. However, it omits details about the response structure (since no output schema exists) and potential failure modes, which could be important for a paid tool. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'name'. The description implies that 'name' refers to a game name, but it does not provide specifics about format, exact matching, or case sensitivity. This is a minimal but insufficient addition beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 providing IGDB game metadata, specifically details, ratings, and similar games. It distinguishes from siblings by naming IGDB as the source, making it different from Steam-related tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', so it reads more like a label than an instruction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (steam_app_intel, steam_deals, etc.). The description implies it is for IGDB game metadata, but it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool is preferred or appropriate, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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