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

The annotations already confirm this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the record contains and noting that a title input returns both a best match and other candidates.

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 'Ficha completa de un juego' and then lists the returned fields and accepted input types. It is information-dense but still readable, with no major filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: core fields, store-level data, other versions, and external database IDs. For a single-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for accurate invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter and its accepted formats. The description adds meaning by clarifying that title input triggers a best-match fallback and returns additional candidates, which is not in 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 resource and the operation: a full game record with description, studio, store links, versions, and external database IDs. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling buscar_juegos, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 accepted input forms, which implies how to use the tool, but it does not say when to use it instead of buscar_juegos or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly guided.

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