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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful expectations about the response: it contains only metadata, not file contents or download links. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying payload scope, though error and authentication behavior are not mentioned.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the resource and return scope; the second states an important exclusion. Everything included earns its place, and key constraints are front-loaded.

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 read operation with strong annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what result to expect and what it excludes. It could be more complete by naming alternatives or listing return fields, but the definition is usable as-is.

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 single parameter applicationId is fully documented in the schema, including a source hint ('as returned by list_applications'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter detail. At this coverage level, the baseline of 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?

The description identifies the output as the saved form of one game and explicitly narrows scope to metadata of archives/media, distinguishing it from file/download tools. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'reads' or 'returns', but the title and 'saved form' make the read intent clear. It does not name siblings like list_applications, but the singular 'one game' is informative.

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 'one game' implies the tool is for retrieving a single existing application rather than listing or creating. 'No file contents or download links' is an explicit when-not condition. The description does not name an alternative tool, but the negative scope is strong enough to prevent misuse.

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