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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it returns community consensus, distribution, and links to the game's page—useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is somewhat long but front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no 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?

Given the single parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (how liked, tier, rank, distribution, similar games) and usage context, making it complete.

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% for appid. Description adds meaning by explaining it's a Steam appid and advising to resolve names with search_games, which helps the agent use the parameter correctly.

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 community consensus for a game on needmoar.games, including how liked it is, tier, rank, distribution, and related games. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like search_games for name resolution and versus for comparison.

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 advises when to use (for 'how popular/well-liked is X?' and 'games similar to X') and instructs to resolve names with search_games first. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with versus, but context from siblings strengthens guidance.

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