Series, DLC and editions of a game

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful context: shelf state is attached to each related game, and 'series' follows IGDB's collection grouping rather than marketing franchise. It explains a subtle behavioral trait that affects interpretation of results.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose: 'Games related to one game — its series, DLC, editions, mods or bundles'. The following sentences add a use case and a critical distinction, each earning its place without redundancy. It is concise yet information-dense.

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 list-type read-only tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (related games with shelf state), how to interpret results (IGDB collection grouping), and when to use an alternative. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 clarifies the 'series' enum value via the IGDB collection note, but does not explain other section values (dlc, editions, mods, bundles, in-bundle, related/associated). Schema coverage is only 50% (game is described, section only has enum), and the description only partially compensates for the undocumented section options.

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 tool lists games related to a given game (series, DLC, editions, mods, bundles) and attaches shelf state. It directly addresses a specific use case ('does this have a remaster or DLC I don't own'), and the franchise/collection distinction helps differentiate it from browse_company.

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 provides when to use: for checking related content and owning status. It also gives an alternative for broader franchise questions ('use browse_company on the publisher instead') and explains the IGDB collection limitation with a concrete example, making the choice clear.

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