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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (ratings, genres, cover art, etc.), which matters because there is no output schema, but it omits rate limits, result-count behavior, and matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy title).

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 core action and scope before listing return fields, then closes with a compact example call. The middle return-field enumeration is long but earns its place given the missing output schema; only minor redundancy with the schema's filter descriptions.

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 usefully compensates by listing the record fields returned, and it covers the optional filters and provides a worked example. Auth via _apiKey is handled in the schema. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though title-matching behavior remains unspecified.

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%, so query, limit, platform_id, released_after and _apiKey are all already documented with format hints (1-50, YYYY-MM-DD, CLIENT_ID:CLIENT_SECRET). The description merely restates that platform and date filters exist without adding syntax or defaults, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Internet Game Database (IGDB) for video games by title') and enumerates the returned record fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling igdb_game (single-record lookup) or igdb_companies, leaving that routing to inference.

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 clear context: use it to find games by title, optionally narrowed by platform or release date, and frames itself as the AUTHORITATIVE source for video-game metadata. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming igdb_game as the alternative for known-ID lookups.

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