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.