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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, it could mention any constraints like rate limits or that it returns media for a single game. The description adds return type details but not behavioral beyond what annotations cover.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get cover art, screenshots, and video trailers') and adds specific details about the returned data. No redundant or unnecessary words; every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has a single well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema (as indicated), the description is mostly complete. It covers the types of media returned. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that it retrieves media for one game at a time, but this is logically implied by the singular 'id' parameter.

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?

The single 'id' parameter is fully described in the input schema (type, description, example). The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 description clearly states it retrieves cover art, screenshots, and video trailers for a specific game, with explicit mention of returned data types (image URLs with dimensions and YouTube IDs). It distinctly separates from sibling tools like igdb.games.details (full info) and igdb.games.search (game discovery).

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 does not explicitly direct when to use this tool versus alternatives such as igdb.games.details, which might include media fields, or igdb.games.search which lists games. It implies usage for media retrieval but lacks explicit 'when' and 'when not' guidance.

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