Get game news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral traits: unknown appid returns empty list (not error), and no API key required. 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and return fields. Efficient and to the point.

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 low complexity, output schema present, and high schema coverage, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (appid, limit). The description adds 'Get the appid from search_games' for appid, which is helpful but not extensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.

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 specific verbs ('Get recent news / patch notes') and resource ('game by appid'), and lists return fields (title, date, author, excerpt, link). It distinguishes from siblings like get_global_achievements by noting similar empty-list behavior for unknown appids.

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?

The description provides clear context: appid should be obtained from search_games, and the tool works without an API key. It implies when to use (getting news/patch notes) and what to expect for invalid inputs (empty list). Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, but sufficient.

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