GTA6 Times

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it returns the closest entries with status, reason and source, and returns "no match rather than guessing" — a meaningful anti-hallucination guarantee. It stops short of describing ranking/threshold behavior, so it is good but not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, then the behavior, then the fallback. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still completes the picture with the when-to-use rule, the sibling alternative, and the no-match fallback — nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already carries the semantics including an example. The description only reinforces the "one specific claim" scope, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 ("check ... one specific GTA 6 claim or rumor") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_facts, which browses the whole database. An agent can tell it apart from get_facts and search without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("when someone asks whether one specific claim or rumor is true") and names the alternative with its selecting condition ("use get_facts to browse the whole database instead"). Nothing is left to inference.

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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: the returned fields and the non-obvious detail that status and sources are embedded inside the text rather than returned separately. It does not mention behavior for invalid or unknown ids.

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 usage condition, then id sourcing, then return shape. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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 a single required parameter and an output schema present, the description need not restate return types, though it does anyway. It is nearly complete for this complexity; the only gap is unspecified behavior when an id is stale or malformed.

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% and the schema already says the id comes from search, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by enumerating concrete id formats ("answer:/gta-6/crossplay", "market:india", "trailer:<slug>"), which materially helps an agent recognise a valid id.

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 ("full text" of a document) and frames it relative to the search tool that produces the id. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_facts or get_latest_news because it is explicitly the post-search full-text retrieval step.

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?

"Use this when a search result needs its full text" gives a clear triggering condition and implies the search-first workflow. It does not address the potential overlap with siblings such as get_facts, get_latest_news or get_trailers, even though the listed id prefixes (fact:, news:, trailer:) suggest this tool can also retrieve those document types directly.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real context by enumerating the returned status taxonomy and the supporting fields (reason, last-checked date, source), plus that filters are optional. It does not mention result-set size defaults or ordering, which the limit parameter only partly covers.

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, front-loaded with the use case before the return shape and filters, with no filler. The parenthetical re-listing of all six status values duplicates the schema enum, a minor redundancy.

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 an output schema handling return structure and annotations handling safety, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: purpose, sibling routing, what each result contains, and which filters are optional.

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% with per-parameter descriptions and an enum, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates that status and keyword filters exist and are optional, adding no format or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('browse the fact database') and scopes it to GTA 6 claims confirmed by Rockstar/Take-Two or rumored. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling check_claim, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

States the triggering condition ('when someone wants to browse the fact database') and names the exclusion case with the alternative tool: 'rather than a ruling on one claim (use check_claim for that)'. That is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: stories arrive newest-first and carry a classification label from a fixed set plus summary, date and source URL. It omits freshness/caching behaviour and the 20-item cap, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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, front-loaded with the invocation trigger, then the return shape. The trailing clause 'where the sources are listed' is slightly awkward and the label enumeration is dense, but overall there is little waste.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to document return structure, and the annotation set covers safety. What's missing for a genuinely complete picture is behaviour when no stories exist or how current the 'latest' data is, but the agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its 1–20 range and newest-first ordering. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns the newest published GTA6 Times stories') and enumerates the payload fields (label, summary, date, URL), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with (e.g. search_gta6times), so it falls short of full differentiation, but 'newest published' versus a search tool is implied.

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?

'Use this when someone asks for the latest GTA 6 news' gives a clear, concrete trigger condition that an agent can match against user intent. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety burden is light. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns the days remaining and unlock moments for New Zealand, the UK, and the US East Coast, and the timezone parameter yields that zone's local-midnight unlock.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded, followed immediately by what is returned and the optional parameter's effect. There is no filler; both sentences carry distinct information.

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 an output schema present, return structure needn't be described in detail. For a simple read-only countdown tool with one optional parameter, the description covers trigger, scope, returned facts, and the timezone effect, leaving no material 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the timezone parameter is not just an IANA zone but specifically selects that zone's local-midnight unlock. That clarifies the semantic effect of the optional parameter beyond the schema's example string.

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 names a specific resource and gives a concrete verb-like retrieval ('returns the confirmed release date... days left... unlock moments'), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It lacks explicit differentiation from the overlapping sibling get_unlock_time, which keeps it below 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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use this when someone asks how long until GTA 6 launches.' That is a strong positive usage cue, but it offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent away from or toward get_unlock_time for unlock-time-specific queries.

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?

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the confidence taxonomy (confirmed, reported, estimate, billed in USD), the source attribution, the last-read date, and the ECB-rate conversion applied only to confirmed markets. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger sentence, then a compact enumeration of return content. The second sentence is long and parenthetical-heavy, but each clause carries distinct information; trimming would lose meaning.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is complete: the agent knows when to call it, what source backs the figure, how reliable the number is, and what conversions accompany it.

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% and the single country parameter already documents accepted forms (name, ISO code, alias with examples). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable but earns only the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — what GTA 6 costs in a given country — and names the two data sources. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_launch_countdown or get_facts without opening any schema.

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?

"Use this when someone asks what GTA 6 costs in a country" gives an explicit trigger condition. It doesn't mention alternatives (e.g. list_markets for discovery, check_claim for verifying a quoted price), so routing 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral value: the result is a fixed official set with release dates and lengths "where read from the official upload" — flagging that some fields may be missing. It doesn't discuss caching or freshness, but with annotations covering safety this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the return contents. Slightly wordy parenthetical enumeration, but every clause carries information about what comes back.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape is covered; the description usefully supplements it with the caveat about lengths. For a no-parameter read tool this is essentially complete, with only sibling routing left 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, fixed-set call and adds no misleading input expectations.

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+resource (retrieves the official GTA 6 trailers) and enumerates the exact items returned (Trailer 1, Trailer 2, An Extended Look, Launch Trailer), which implicitly separates it from news/facts siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a contrasting sibling, so a 4 rather than 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?

"Use this when someone asks about the official GTA 6 trailers" gives a clear activation context. No when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., get_latest_news for breaking items) are named, leaving routing between siblings partly to inference.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing provenance (PS Store listing, local midnight Nov 19 2026) and two important caveats — Rockstar has no published unlock table and Xbox timing is unconfirmed. That prevents an agent from over-claiming certainty, which is behavioral context that exists nowhere in the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then source, then return shape, then caveats — a sensible ordering with no filler. It runs slightly long by restating return contents that an output schema already defines.

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 one-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the definition covers trigger, data source, temporal basis and known uncertainty. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or caveat its answer is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents that country accepts names, ISO codes or aliases with examples (India, UK, US, BR). The description adds only 'given country', so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema — baseline 3.

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 ('asks what time GTA 6 unlocks in a given country') and grounds it in a named data source, the PlayStation Store listing. An agent can distinguish this from get_launch_countdown, get_price and get_facts without opening any schema.

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?

'Use this when someone asks what time GTA 6 unlocks in a given country' gives an explicit trigger condition scoped by both subject and geography. The country-scoped framing implicitly routes general launch questions to the countdown 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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: a market count (98) and a data-freshness timestamp (last fully rechecked October 24, 2026), which tells the agent how stale results may be.

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 waste, and the primary use case is front-loaded before the filter note. Every clause (trigger question, count, freshness, filter) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, volume and data freshness. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of the returned markets or whether the filter changes result size.

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% and the single enum's five values are fully explained in the schema itself, so description adds little beyond "Optional filter by status." Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the meaning.

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 ("Lists every tracked market") plus concrete scope (98 markets, price status each). That scope makes it distinguishable from per-market siblings like get_price or get_facts without opening a schema.

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?

"Use this when someone asks which countries GTA 6 prices are tracked for, or which prices are confirmed" gives an explicit triggering question. No when-not condition or named alternative (e.g. get_price for a single market) is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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 this a safe, idempotent read, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond the structured fields: a result cap of 10 and the id→fetch chaining pattern for retrieving full text, which is the key workflow fact an agent needs. The result shape it lists is partly redundant with the output schema, which keeps this below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return shape and the sibling redirect. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the use case.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's job is use case plus routing — both are fully covered. The 10-result cap and id-to-fetch handoff close the remaining gap an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) with concrete query examples like "unlock time India". The description adds no further syntax, length, or phrasing guidance, so the schema is doing all the work and 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 (searches) and enumerates the resource scope (answers, news, facts, markets, trailers, pages), and names the sibling it is not (search_gta6times). An agent can distinguish this deep-research search from the link-oriented sibling without reading either schema.

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?

Opening clause gives an explicit trigger condition ("when someone asks anything about GTA 6 and you need sourced material") and the downstream pattern (pass the id to the fetch tool). It also routes the agent to search_gta6times when the goal is just a link to hand a person, so both the when and the alternative are stated.

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 confirm it is read-only and safe (no destructive hint). The description adds the constraint that the results are matching pages with a one-line description, setting the expectation for the return structure beyond the 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?

The definition is concise and front-loads the core directive about the return value (link to page) before specifying the scope and exclusions. It is efficient.

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 it returns a list of matching pages with one-line descriptions, it is reasonably complete for an agent. It directs the agent on the distinction between this tool and other information retrieval tools, which adds significant value.

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 description primarily confirms the purpose of 'query' (the topic) and introduces the 'limit' parameter, although it doesn't add unique semantic meaning not covered by the schema's 'maximum/minimum' constraints.

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?

Clearly states the function: to find a link to the GTA6 Times page covering a topic. While specific, it is not as robust as a sibling tool that might have a more precise verb for its specific scope (e.g., 'list_page_links').

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 explicit usage instructions, specifically telling the user to use this tool for getting a *link* to a page, and to use sibling tools like 'search' or 'fetch' when the *sourced text itself* is required.

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