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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the JSON is intentionally dynamic, fields may be added, missing/null never means zero, and the payload carries no server-generated conclusion. These are high-value behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 core purpose, then constraints and the guide reference. Dense but every sentence carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well: it lists the fields to inspect (schema_version, period, freshness, coverage, sample sizes, warnings) and the dynamic nature of the payload. Complete for correct invocation.

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; the description adds genuine meaning by specifying that dateFrom/dateTo are inclusive calendar dates spanning at most 31 days and by explaining the cursor as page.next_cursor. This goes beyond the schema's format-only descriptions.

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: aggregated telemetry returned for one game, explicitly framed as evidence with no server-generated conclusion. This distinguishes it from guide/checklist siblings, though it does not name the sibling alternatives directly.

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 clear operational context: paginate via next_cursor until sufficient data is read, and consult get_game_telemetry_guide before instrumenting or interpreting. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions relative to other telemetry-adjacent siblings.

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