VIGuides

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint as true, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are curated facts that separate confirmed information from rumors and include a source URL to cite. This goes beyond the read-only annotation and clarifies what the agent can expect back.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: scope, return value, and language instruction. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields. The most important usage constraint (language values) is placed near the end but still clearly readable.

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 an output schema present and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers purpose, return behavior, and language constraints. The only notable gaps are explicit sibling routing and behavior when no answer is available, but these are minor for a simple two-parameter read-only tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly enumerates allowed lang values ('en, de, es, pt, fr, tr, ar') and clarifies that the question should pertain to GTA 6 as answered by the editorial knowledge base. This adds value beyond the bare parameter names and types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Answer any GTA 6 question' from the VIGuides editorial knowledge base. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering any question, while siblings target countdowns, guides, release info, sources, or trending searches. The return behavior (curated facts, source URL) reinforces what the tool does.

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 description implies usage when a user has any GTA 6 question, which provides some guidance. However, it does not name sibling tools or state when to choose an alternative such as gta6_release_info or gta6_sources. Exclusions and alternative routing are left entirely to inference.

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 readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by promising 'the honest state of the launch unlock time,' indicating the tool will disclose caveats (e.g., exact midnight vs. staggered unlock). This goes beyond the schema and is consistent with annotations.

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 sentence front-loads the core action ('Days until the GTA 6 release') and appends two additional useful pieces of information without excess wording or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered structurally. The only slightly ambiguous element is 'honest state,' but the countdown's core scope is otherwise complete for a tool with no parameters.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to document inputs. Schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the description focuses on what the countdown returns rather than parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Days until') and a precise resource (GTA 6 release on November 19, 2026), then adds specific additional outputs (preload date, launch unlock time). The countdown focus clearly differentiates it from siblings like gta6_release_info or gta6_answer.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool—when a user asks how many days remain, preload timing, or the actual unlock time. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of the highest rating.

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 indicate readOnlyHint true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds that the operation is a read-only list and mentions filtering and language, but does not disclose side effects (none expected).

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 concise sentences, no unnecessary words. Directly states purpose and parameter constraints.

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 operation, the description is sufficient: it covers action, resource, output, and parameters. Output schema likely provides further details.

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?

Description clarifies the lang parameter allowed values (en, de, es, pt, fr, tr, ar) and explains the topic parameter as an optional filter. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (VIGuides GTA 6 guides), and output (URLs). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that answer questions, countdown, release info, sources, trending searches.

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?

Does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool, though the description implies it is for listing guides. Could benefit from explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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 readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool is 'Deterministic, with source URL' and lists exactly what content it returns (confirmed/unconfirmed facts). This is valuable context beyond the annotation, but it doesn't contradict and the annotation already covers the safety aspect. No missing behavioral detail is critical for a read-only info tool.

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 sentence but packs all key information: content scope, deterministic nature, source URL, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has zero fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, behavior (deterministic with source), and parameter usage. Since output schema exists, return format details are unnecessary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly enumerates the allowed values for 'lang' (en, de, es, pt, fr, tr, ar), which the schema itself does not provide. This fully specifies the only parameter and leaves no ambiguity.

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 provides confirmed GTA 6 release facts, listing specific content areas (date, platforms, preload, prices, unconfirmed details). It uses a specific verb ('provides') and resource ('release facts'), and the content is distinct from sibling tools like gta6_countdown or gta6_sources, so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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 description gives clear context on what the tool is for (release information) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. It does provide guidance on the 'lang' parameter (allowed values), which is usage-relevant. Although it doesn't say 'use this when X instead of Y', the context is unambiguous enough for a simple lookup tool.

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 give readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent, claiming only to 'return' data. It adds context about what is returned (sources, last reviewed, editorial rules) beyond the annotation, but does not detail response format or potential limitations. Still, the read-only nature is fully disclosed.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a clear usage note and parameter instruction. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and what is returned. The annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and the output schema presumably handles return details. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explicitly guides the lang parameter ('Set lang to one of en, de, es, pt, fr, tr, ar') and implicitly defines question as the GTA 6 topic to look up. Both parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 returns the sources VIGuides used for a GTA 6 topic, with the specific purpose of citing the original instead. It lists source types (official material, store pages, named outlets) and differentiates from siblings by tying usage to uncertain claims.

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 provides a clear trigger ('Use this before repeating a GTA 6 claim you are unsure about') and parameter guidance for lang. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would fully satisfy the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read operation, so the description doesn't contradict it. It adds context about the data source (VIGuides demand radar) and clarifies the aggregation across 14+ markets, which is useful, but doesn't discuss rate limits, authorization, or response details beyond that.

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 somewhat lengthy due to the market list, but the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the market list is necessary because it acts as the parameter documentation. No wasted filler sentences.

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 the tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers the practical usage. It tells the agent what data is returned (trending questions) and the available markets. The output schema handles return value details, so no major gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for the 'market' parameter. It explicitly lists all supported market codes (en-US, en-GB, etc.), which effectively documents the possible values, going beyond the bare parameter name and default.

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 returns trending GTA 6 search questions from a daily collector, which is a specific resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gta6_answer or gta6_release_info by the nature of the data, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 description explains what the tool does but never says when to choose it over other GTA 6 tools. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and purpose.

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