metacritic_game

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

No annotations provided, but the description states 'Credential-free public Metacritic data,' which clarifies it requires no authentication and provides public data. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the implied read-only nature of 'Get'.

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 two concise sentences: the first states purpose and enumerates return fields, the second adds the credential-free note. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with core information.

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 single-resource retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers all observed return fields (Metascore, user score, genres, platforms, etc.) and notes public access. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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?

The only parameter 'slug' has a schema description 'Metacritic game slug.' The tool description adds no further semantic information about the slug format or examples, so it provides no added value over 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?

The tool name 'metacritic_game' combined with the description 'Get a Metacritic game' clearly indicates it retrieves game-specific data. The description lists detailed return fields (Metascore, user score, genres, etc.), differentiating it from siblings like metacritic_movie or metacritic_tv.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metacritic_game_critic_reviews or metacritic_game_user_reviews. The description lacks explicit context for choosing this over other Metacritic-related tools.

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