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 value by stating 'Works without an API key' and listing the specific fields returned, providing behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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 concise: two sentences that first state the core purpose and then provide a crucial usage tip (source of appid). No unnecessary words, and all sentences earn their place.

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 the simple parameters and existing annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter source, and authentication requirements. A minor gap is the lack of default behavior for the optional limit parameter, but the schema covers the range.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described. The description reinforces the source of the appid (search_games) which adds semantic context beyond the schema alone. This helps the agent understand how to obtain the required parameter.

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 recent news/patch notes for a game by appid, listing the fields returned (title, date, author, excerpt, link). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_games and get_game_info by its specific focus on news.

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 by instructing the user to obtain the appid from search_games. It also mentions that no API key is required, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or suggest when not to use this tool.

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