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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds that untitled and deleted games are excluded and that ordering is stable for paging. These are useful behavioral details not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 concise sentences with zero fluff: purpose and fields first, then ordering stability and exclusions, then the no-filters note. Every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations already covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description fully covers purpose, returned fields, ordering, exclusions, paging behavior, and filtering limitations.

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%, so skip and limit are fully documented there. The description adds only the paging stability hint, which is behavioral rather than parameter-specific; it does not enrich the meaning of the parameters themselves.

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 (list) plus resource (named games) with the exact fields returned and ordering ('newest first'), clearly distinguishing from the singular sibling get_application and other list tools like list_leaderboards.

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?

Explicitly states there are no filters and instructs the agent to match on title or status itself, implying this tool is for unfiltered, paginated listing. It doesn't name an alternative tool directly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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