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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — results are filtered by the authenticated user's visibility — but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or whether the list is complete or paginated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope constraint is stated immediately. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity edges into under-specification given the two undocumented filters.

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 tool with two opaque filtering parameters, no output schema, and a family of nearly identical list_* siblings, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a 'custom' filter means or how spriteId narrows results without guessing.

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 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. 'custom' (a boolean filter) and 'spriteId' (a positive integer filter) are non-obvious, and their relationship to the returned games is left entirely unexplained — the description makes no attempt to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (games) with an explicit scope qualifier ('visible to the authenticated user'), so the agent knows this is a scoped enumeration rather than a fetch-by-id. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_game or the many other list_* tools, which is the only gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over get_game for a specific record, nor when to reach for it versus the other list_* siblings. No prerequisites, no note about result size or pagination.

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