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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it accepts multiple names and returns matches, but does not elaborate on response format or potential errors. Given annotations carry the safety burden, the description adds moderate value.

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 contributing distinct value: purpose, usage order, and batching instruction. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 lookup tool with two parameters and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential context: when to use, how to batch, and the output mapping. However, it could improve by briefly describing the response structure (e.g., array of matches with appid and name).

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%; both parameters have inline descriptions. The description reiterates the batching advice for 'queries' and default for 'limit', but does not add significant new meaning beyond 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 title 'Resolve games to Steam appids' and description clearly state the tool's purpose: converting game names to numeric appids. It identifies the specific resource (needmoar.games) and distinguishes from siblings (versus, game_detail) which require appids as input.

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?

Description explicitly advises to call this tool first and to batch all user-mentioned game names in one call. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives beyond the implied sequence.

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