Find similar games

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the internal algorithm: it takes dominant community tags, searches on them, and scores results by tag overlap. It also reveals keyless operation and personalization behavior when a key is available, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to pass a user.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The first sentence establishes purpose with examples, and the second explains the mechanism and key behavior. Every sentence 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?

For a 4-parameter read-only tool with well-documented schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, scoring, keyless behavior, and personalization. It does not describe the return format or ordering explicitly, but that is largely inferable from the scoring explanation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics for appids by explaining they are seed games whose dominant tags drive the search, and clarifies the personalization dimension behind user and exclude_owned. This exceeds the baseline without duplicating the schema.

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 ('Find games resembling') and resource ('one or more you name'), with concrete natural-language examples that make the intent unmistakable. The mechanism is also stated (tag-based search and overlap scoring), which distinguishes it from generic search or recommendation tools.

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 usage context: use it when you have seed games in mind and want similar titles, including multi-seed queries like 'something between Factorio and Rimworld'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the examples and tag-based approach make the intended use obvious.

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