Browse a company's games

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

Discloses a 60-per-request limit and that no follow-up lookups are needed, adding context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and the idempotentHint=false does not appear in the description.

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?

Three sentences pack the main behavior, use case, and input sourcing with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core function and follows with practical guidance.

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?

Given no output schema, the description conveys what the response includes (games with shelf/rating), the page limit, and the fact that no extra lookups are needed. It lacks explicit mention of the page parameter, but the overall picture is sufficient for a read-only browse tool.

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 description adds key context for the company parameter (where to get slugs) and hints at pagination behavior (60 per request), but the sort and order parameters are left undocumented. With schema coverage at 50%, the description only partially compensates.

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 it returns every game by a developer or publisher, each with the user's shelf and rating. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from the sibling browse_games, which is not company-scoped.

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 provides use cases (finding unplayed games, franchise gap-hunting) and tells where to get company slugs (get_game or company links). It lacks a direct contrast with browse_games, but the use-case context is strong.

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