Tailorgame public tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that content is published documentation about current capabilities and limitations and that no account access is involved, which tells an agent it can call this before authenticating; it stops short of saying whether the result is static text or links.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the resource set, with zero filler. The account-access caveat is placed after the core statement where it belongs.

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, read-only, single-enum-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the no-account constraint. The only minor gap is a hint about what the returned documentation looks like or how large it may be, which annotations do not cover.

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%, but with a single optional enum parameter that self-enumerates its five values and supplies a default, the schema carries most of the meaning. The description echoes the topic values (overview is only implied via "product"), adding modest value but no guidance on choosing between topics.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("published product, authentication, pricing, games, or API documentation"), which maps closely onto the topic enum. It is clearly distinguishable from the data-listing siblings get_rankings and list_games, though it never names them explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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?

It implies the usage context (looking up how Tailorgame works, its capabilities and limits) and hints that no account is needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_rankings/list_games guidance or exclusions. A reader must infer that this is the reference-lookup starting point rather than a data query.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description wisely spends its words on data-quality traits the annotations cannot express: scores are client-reported (unverified) and scoring scales differ across games (not directly comparable). That is exactly the kind of caveat that changes how an agent should present results.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the caveats an agent needs before relaying numbers. No filler, no restatement of the title or annotations.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the relevant scope and reliability caveats. It stops short of indicating the shape or granularity of the ranking data (per-game vs. per-player grouping, ordering, limits), which would have closed the last gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not waste space restating an empty 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?

"Read public game and player rankings" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (rankings) with an explicit scope qualifier (public). It is distinguishable from list_games and get_documentation by resource type, though it never names those siblings to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

The final sentence ("No account details or balances are returned") implies a boundary — use something else for account data — and "public" signals unauthenticated scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative sibling tools, and no stated condition for choosing rankings over list_games.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds a scope boundary — no account, no private games, no credentials — which tells the agent this is public unauthenticated data. It stops short of disclosing pagination, default page size, or result ordering.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the scope constraint second; no filler or restatement of the title. Slightly compact at the cost of omitting parameter guidance that would have earned 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?

With three optional parameters, an enum, a limit cap, and no output schema, the description should explain category filtering and the meaning of limit/results. It instead only gestures at 'search' and catalog status, leaving an agent to open the schema to understand two-thirds of the inputs.

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 only 33%: only 'query' is documented, while 'limit' (default 20, max 50) and 'category' (enum of four values) carry no textual explanation. The description mentions nothing about category filtering, result caps, or pagination, so it fails 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?

Names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('public game catalog') and adds a secondary dimension ('playable or coming-soon status'). This clearly separates it from get_documentation and get_rankings, though it doesn't state that this is a list/discovery endpoint returning multiple games.

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?

Usage is implied by 'search the public game catalog' — an agent can infer it is the discovery entry point. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the siblings, nor any note about pagination, ordering, or result-set behavior when the limit is exhausted.

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