pandascore_videogames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the auth requirement (PANDASCORE_TOKEN) and the unverified status of the response shape ('NOT been verified against a live response'), advising the agent to inspect actual payload. No contradictions.

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 well-organized with clear sections (purpose, usage, return shape, caveat, auth). It is front-loaded with the key purpose. The 'Example: All titles' line is somewhat redundant and the note is slightly verbose, but each part adds some value.

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 0-param read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage timing, return shape (top-level array with specific fields), auth, and data reliability caveats. Since there is no output schema, the return shape example and the warning about unverified data are critical and well provided.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema offers no information. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description compensates by providing the return shape example, which helps the agent understand what to expect even though parameters are absent.

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 clearly states 'The titles PandaScore covers, with the slug every other tool needs' – a specific verb+resource with explicit scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on videogame titles and their slugs, positioning itself as a prerequisite for other PandaScore 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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this first rather than guessing a slug', which directly tells the agent when to use this tool and why. This establishes a clear usage order relative to other tools that depend on slugs.

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