igdb_search_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the thin output shape and the default exclusion of DLCs, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether authentication is required, possible rate limits, or how results are ordered/handled when no match is found. It stops short of a fully transparent behavioral profile.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose and limitation are in the first sentence, the alternative is next, and the parameter list is tight. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple read-only search tool with no output schema, the description provides the key return fields, parameter semantics, and a pointer to the details tool. It is largely complete for invocation, though it omits auth requirements and any mention of how errors or zero-result searches behave.

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 0%, so the parameter documentation must compensate. The description covers all four arguments: query as free-text, include_dlcs as DLC/expansion filtering, limit with an explicit 1-500 range, and offset as pagination. This is solid, though offset is described only minimally as 'Pagination offset'.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Search IGDB by name'. It clearly states the thin result scope ('id, name, release_year') and explicitly points to igdb_get_game_details for more depth, which differentiates it from the most relevant sibling tool without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly names igdb_get_game_details as the alternative when more detail is needed, giving an agent a clear routing rule. It could also mention when to prefer other lookup methods like igdb_lookup_by_steam_appid, but for the search-vs-details decision the guidance is adequate.

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