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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the record is public, and hidden achievements are masked unless you control the author — a real data-visibility rule an agent needs to interpret results correctly. It also discloses the refereed_by enum values (broker | referees).

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; every clause describes a real returned field or access rule. It is front-loaded with the resource identity, though the parenthetical enumeration is jargon-heavy and slightly hard to parse on first read.

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 no output schema, the description rightly carries the return-value burden and does so field-by-field, plus access level ('Public'). Nothing critical for a correct read-only call is missing; only the absence of any usage guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters (author, name) are already documented, including that name accepts an app name or slug. The description only touches 'author' obliquely via the author-control masking rule and adds no lookup-format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource ('a registered game') and enumerates what the returned record contains (rev, manifest, boards, referees, achievements, player count), so an agent can distinguish it from get_app, get_store_app and get_player. The verb is only implicit ('A registered game:' rather than 'retrieves the registration record for'), which keeps it just 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?

The description never says when to call this versus siblings like get_store_app or get_app, nor what prerequisites exist beyond the one-word 'Public'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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