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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that arbitrary hosts, query strings, traversal, conflicting filter groups and unsupported tokens are actively rejected, and that the landing grid has no pagination field. It also defines the empty-result behavior (source-confirmed empty page returns an empty item list). These are the failure and edge cases an agent needs to avoid wasted calls.

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 return shape is front-loaded, followed by defaults and then constraints, so the agent hits the essentials first. It is dense rather than padded, but the path-restriction clause (arbitrary hosts, traversal, unsupported tokens) is stated twice — once in the description and again in the path parameter schema — which is minor redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter browse tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers defaults, input validation, pagination semantics, the landing-grid exception, and empty-result behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: path is a passthrough from itchio_jams_options that must not be rewritten, and page is a native source href rather than an invented cursor. The landing-grid page-1 restriction is contextual information the schema alone does not convey in that framing.

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 ('Browse itch.io game jams') and enumerates exactly what it returns (jam cards with title, cover, host, dates, counts, ranking/featured status, result links, plus path/page/count/pagination). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling itchio_jams_options, which produces the path this tool consumes. An agent can tell this apart from jams_options and jams_entries without opening either schema.

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 concrete operating conditions: path defaults to /jams/upcoming, page defaults to 1, paths must be followed unchanged, and the /jams landing grid supports page 1 only. It points at itchio_jams_options/itchio_jams_entries as the source of valid paths, which effectively routes the agent. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' statement for the other jam siblings.

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