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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the database size and the types of metadata returned (genres, platforms, ratings, etc.), which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 description is a single, informative sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Search') and immediately provides context (280K+ games, IGDB). Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or superfluous text.

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's low parameter count, high schema coverage, existence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose, data source, and the type of metadata available. No critical gaps are present for typical usage.

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% with both parameters (query and limit) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new information about the parameters themselves, but it does indicate the richness of the output, indirectly justifying the query parameter. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches games, specifies the data source (IGDB/Twitch) and lists rich metadata fields (genres, platforms, ratings, cover art, release dates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like igdb.games.details and rawg.games.search by naming its scope.

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 implies usage for searching games with comprehensive metadata but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like rawg.games.search or igdb.games.details. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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