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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral detail beyond that: the newest-first ordering, the empty-query listing mode, and the slug-as-prerequisite for deeper retrieval. Slightly redundant in restating return fields, which the output schema already carries.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the sibling pointer, with zero filler. The enumeration of return fields is mildly wasteful given an output schema exists, but it is compact rather than rambling.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling return values, the only remaining gaps an agent would face are ordering and empty-query behavior — both stated. Nothing needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by defining the otherwise ambiguous empty-value case for query and the ordering applied to that result set. It doesn't add syntax rules for partial matches, but the schema's example ('wolverine') covers that.

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 and resource (find video games) plus the scope that distinguishes it: games 'Creative Cult follows', searched by name. It also names the sibling get_game for full reports, so an agent can separate the lookup paths without opening either schema.

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 routing to the alternative: use get_game when a slug exists and a full report is wanted. It also specifies the degenerate case — empty query lists every game with a report, newest first — so the agent knows an empty call is legal and what it produces.

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