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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the 8-day verification filter, the NO_MATCHES zero-result contract, and up to 3 executed relaxations whose args can be replayed. It also specifies presentation obligations (quote match_reasons, link play_url, attribution). Only the relaxation mechanics are left partially implicit.

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?

Front-loads the time window and ordering before secondary rules, and every clause carries information. It is dense and somewhat run-on, which slightly hurts scanability, but little is wasted.

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?

Covers the edge cases an agent most needs (empty results, relaxation replay, listing-only, attribution) and an output schema handles return structure. Gaps remain on the numeric thresholds (min_quality, session_length_max) and mood semantics.

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 only 8% across 12 params, so the description must compensate. It explains plays, include_listing_only, and the content_rating_max default, but leaves mood, min_quality, session_length_max, difficulty, players, and inputs undefined beyond bare enums.

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+resource+scope: 'Games published in the last 30 days, newest first', which distinguishes it from trending (popularity-based) and search_games (query-based). It does not name siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clarifies conditional behavior (include_listing_only=true, plays=here vs developer_site, content_rating_max default) but never says when to prefer this over trending or search_games. Usage is implied by the 30-day window rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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