nexus_get_game_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's extra context is valuable rather than redundant. It adds that the API avoids the v1 REST rate-limit quota and documents the return shape: a JSON game object or an error object for unknown domains.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: what the tool returns, the API-backend distinction, and the error behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 single well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how it behaves on unknown domains. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, clearly explaining that domain_name is a lowercase URL slug and not a display name. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get rich game details via v2 GraphQL') and lists concrete data points it returns, such as mod/download/collection counts, genre, forum URL, and Vortex support. It also distinguishes itself from the v1 REST-based sibling by emphasizing the v2 GraphQL backend and rate-limit behavior.

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 clearly signals when this tool is preferable by noting it does NOT consume the v1 REST rate-limit quota, giving the agent a strong reason to choose it over v1 alternatives. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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