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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that calls are free and unlimited, handles punctuation/accents/abbreviations, returns no prices, and explains duplicate handling (12,388 duplicate titles, disambiguate by release date/type). This goes beyond basic read-only expectation and gives the agent critical operational context.

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 front-loaded with the most critical info (FREE, when to use) and flows logically through return content, fuzzy matching, duplicates, and next steps. It's a bit verbose with specific statistics (12,388 titles, 54 Pac-Man versions) but every sentence serves a purpose, making it efficient despite not being ultra-tight.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, usage, return fields, matching behavior, duplicate caveat, pricing exclusion, and a clear next action. It equips the agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, leaving little ambiguity for this lookup use case.

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 real value by explaining the q parameter's fuzzy-matching behavior ('L4D' finds 'Left 4 Dead') and the purpose of the type field for disambiguating duplicates. It doesn't elaborate on limit beyond schema, but the added context for q and type justifies a 4.

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 purpose: 'USE THIS FIRST when you know a game by NAME but not by identifier.' It specifies the verb (lookup), resource (game by name), and return payload (slug, release date, type), distinguishing it from get_game which uses an identifier. The examples of fuzzy matching reinforce its role as a search/disambiguation tool.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'USE THIS FIRST' when you have a name but not an identifier, and 'Take the slug and call get_game with it' as the follow-up. It also notes when not to use it ('Returns no prices') and implies alternative tools for pricing. This is clear, actionable, and differentiates from siblings.

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