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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the read-only annotations: a verification window, which games are excluded, that zero results is a success with code NO_MATCHES plus up to 3 executed relaxations that can be replayed via tool/args, and an attribution requirement. These are non-obvious result-shape and failure-mode facts an agent could not get from the schema or 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 scope constraint leads, followed by filter caveats and then output/attribution instructions, with no filler sentences. It is dense to the point of packing several clauses per sentence, but every clause carries 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?

With 12 optional filters, an output schema, and an explicit no-match/relaxation protocol, the description covers the hardest parts (empty results, replayable relaxations, attribution) well. It still leaves half the filter surface unexplained, which matters because a caller cannot tell how min_quality or session_length_max should be tuned.

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 8% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, but it only explains plays, include_listing_only, and the content_rating_max default (the latter already in the schema default). mood, difficulty, players, inputs, min_quality, session_length_max, and exclude_genres remain undefined anywhere, including what min_quality=0-100 actually measures.

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?

Starts with a concrete verb+resource+scope: games published in the last 30 days, newest first, restricted to published/playable games verified in the last 8 days. This clearly separates it from search_games and trending by recency, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives conditional guidance for include_listing_only and plays ('listing-only games with include_listing_only=true; plays=here or plays=developer_site picks one kind'), which is genuinely useful. However it never says when to pick this over search_games, trending, or random_game, so the alternative-routing is left to inference.

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