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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key recommendation rule ('Recomienda siempre la key') and the summary formatting constraint about embedding the store link inside the sentence. This gives useful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows, though it does not discuss potential side effects or data-source nuances.

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 dense but purposeful: it front-loads the output contents, then the recommendation rule, then the summary formatting instruction, then usage context. Each sentence carries actionable information, though it is a bit long and could be tightened.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description does a solid job explaining what the response contains, how to format it, and when to use the tool. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the usage triggers compensate largely.

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?

The schema documents the single parameter game as 'id numerico o slug del juego', which fully covers its meaning. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 states what the tool returns: the game price, format (key, account, gift), store, purchase link, and buying-context information. It also adds a distinguishing behavior by saying it always recommends the key. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_deals or get_price_history, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit usage triggers: 'Usalo cuando pregunten donde comprar, cuanto cuesta o si conviene esperar.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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