Get game news

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description reveals that unknown appids return an empty list rather than an error, and that no API key is required. It also lists the output fields, adding practical context for handling 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?

Two sentences achieve high density: the first defines purpose and output, the second covers edge-case behavior and input sourcing. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, edge-case behavior, auth requirements, and return fields. No significant operational gaps remain.

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 both appid and limit fully described in the input schema. The description mostly repeats appid provenance ('Get it from search_games') and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves game news/patch notes by appid, using a specific verb and resource. It lists the returned fields (title, date, author, excerpt, link) and is distinct from sibling tools like get_game_reviews or get_global_achievements.

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 instructs the agent to obtain the appid from search_games, a key prerequisite. It also explains that an unknown appid returns an empty list, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to prefer this tool over alternatives, so it misses the full 5.

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