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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about what fields are returned (abbreviation, generation, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations or introduce hidden side effects.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure. It lists the included fields, which is sufficient. The tool is simple and the description covers all essential aspects for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, with each parameter described (id, query, limit). The description reiterates the lookup methods (by ID or name) and mentions the limit for searches, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema definitions. The baseline of 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 uses a clear verb ('Look up') and specifies the resource ('gaming platforms') along with the available lookup methods ('by ID or search by name'). It lists the returned fields ('abbreviation, generation, platform family, versions, and summary'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'igdb.games.search' or 'igdb.companies.info'.

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 explains how to use the tool (by ID or query with limit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context of platform lookup is clear, and the sibling list includes related tools like 'igdb.games.search', but the description does not differentiate them.

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