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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the free cost, the valid 24h token requirement, the return values (changed:true/false) and what they mean, and instructs on follow-up actions. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 a single dense paragraph but each sentence contributes meaningful guidance (cost, usage order, prerequisites, return handling). It is slightly longer than necessary but not verbose; the key information is 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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains the return behavior (changed:true/false) and the proper responses. It covers prerequisites, cost, and integration with get_free_games, making the tool fully understandable in context.

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% for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context: access_token validity (24h) and the logical relationship between the parameters (known_version compared against current). This enriches meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it checks whether anything changed since a known version, distinguishing it from get_free_games by positioning it as a prerequisite check. The verb 'tell you whether anything changed' is specific, and the resource scope ('since the version you have') is clear.

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 when to use: 'USE THIS BEFORE get_free_games if you already hold a copy' and provides context on cost ('FREE — costs nothing') and prerequisites (access token, version string). It also differentiates from the sibling tool get_free_games, making the usage scenario unambiguous.

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