FoolFish Games

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the returned content set (factual description, full published instructions, controls, devices, guide links), which is meaningful because no output schema exists; it stops short of describing behavior for missing or ambiguous titles.

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, no filler, with the purpose and returned payload front-loaded before the accepted identifier forms. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back, and the lone parameter is fully documented in the schema. It is nearly complete for a simple read lookup; only edge-case behavior (unresolvable title, multiple matches) is 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 the single parameter's schema description already lists the accepted forms with examples. The description restates the same three accepted forms (title, public slug, catalog ID) without adding format, matching or disambiguation guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Get ... for one game') and enumerates the payload it returns (description, instructions, controls, devices, guide links), which clearly separates it from search_games. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling get_guide, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'for one game' implies a single-item lookup as opposed to the search_* siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over get_guide or search_games, and no mention of prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by describing the shape of the returned content (headings, tips, canonical links), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of error behavior for an unknown slug.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the output, the second gives the prerequisite routing. Front-loaded with the purpose and no 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?

For a single-required-param read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety, content shape, and the search-then-read prerequisite. Only the failure mode for an invalid/nonexistent slug is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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%: the single slug parameter already documents its pattern and gives a concrete example. The description adds nothing about the parameter's format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (read) and resource (published guide/article text) and enumerates what comes back: prose, section headings, tips, canonical links. This clearly separates it from search_guides, which only locates guides rather than returning their content.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (search_guides) and the condition that selects it (to find the slug first), which is the sole prerequisite for calling this tool. An agent needs no inference to know search-then-read is the intended flow.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that each result explains its catalog matches and that ranking follows relevance then title rather than popularity or editorial rating. Those ranking/explanation semantics are exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and mostly dense. 'Each result explains its catalog matches' is a little vague and leans on an unexplained notion of 'catalog matches', slightly diluting an otherwise tight description.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, this covers the matching model, ranking model, and result explanation. It is largely sufficient, though it says nothing about limit/exclude behavior or what happens when no games match, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 only 50% (tags, exclude, limit are bare), and the description compensates by explaining the matching mode that separates parameters: 'Matches catalog text and optional exact category/tags.' That tells the agent preferences is fuzzy text matching while category/tags are exact, which the schema alone does not convey for tags.

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 verb and resource ('Find browser games') plus the discriminating scope ('matching stated gameplay preferences and device'). It also clarifies what makes this a recommender rather than a plain search ('ordering is relevance then title, not popularity or an editorial rating'), which implicitly distinguishes it from search_games — but it never names the sibling outright.

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 'matching stated gameplay preferences' — the agent can infer you call this when you have a preference phrase. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, despite search_games being an obvious adjacent sibling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds real value beyond that: the shape of results (canonical play-page links plus related primary guides), the empty-query fallback to alphabetical listing, and an explicit warning that ordering is not popularity-driven.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the return value and the empty-query caveat. Every sentence carries information; minor room to fold the popularity caveat more tightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (play-page links, primary guides) and covers the zero-required-parameter edge case. The only gap is the semantics of tags/limit/device, which are left entirely to the partially documented schema.

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 60%, so the schema already documents query and category. The description adds the empty-query behavior for the query parameter but says nothing about tags, limit, or device, leaving part of the parameter set undocumented in both places. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search full-release browser games) and names the searchable fields (title or gameplay). It distinguishes itself from get_game by emphasizing discovery rather than retrieval, though it never explicitly contrasts with recommend_games or search_guides.

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?

Provides clear usage context: an empty query lists games alphabetically and results do not reflect popularity, which preempts a common misreading. However, it never names alternatives (recommend_games, get_game) or states when this tool should be preferred over them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that only *published* guides are returned and that a game slug matches the primary game only (recommendations excluded) — real behavioral context. It says nothing about result ordering, the default/max limit behavior, or pagination, so it stays at a 3.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the filter caveat second. Every clause 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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key filter semantics but omits what a result contains, ordering, and the meaning/behavior of the default limit of 8 — details an agent cannot recover since no output schema exists. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67% (game and query documented, limit not). The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the `game` slug matches only the primary game and not linked recommendations, which changes expected recall. It adds nothing for `limit`, keeping it below 5.

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 verb and resource ("Find published FoolFish Games guides and articles") plus the scoping dimension ("by topic"), which is enough to separate it from get_guide (fetch one) and search_games (a different resource). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from its siblings, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you want guides/articles by topic, with game as an optional narrowing filter. However, it never says when NOT to use it or points to search_games / get_guide as alternatives, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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