Get Mod Details + Description + Requirements (GraphQL)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the description is returned as raw BBCode 'as stored' (not rendered or sanitized), and that uid is included specifically for v3, which affect downstream handling. No contradiction with annotations present.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the key differentiator ('without an API key') and then lists the included fields in order. No filler, no repetition of schema content, and every phrase earns its 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does enumerate the main fields plus the BBCode caveat. However, the structure of requirements/mods-requiring-it and error behavior for invalid mod_id are left unspecified, and the include_description toggle is only discoverable in the schema.

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 documentation covers only 'game' (33% coverage); mod_id and include_description lack schema descriptions. The tool description implies include_description's effect by promising the 'full description', and mod_id is reasonably clear by name, but the description does not directly explain parameter behavior or formats, leaving the coverage gap only partially compensated.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (mod info) and enumerates the payload: full BBCode description, tags, uid, requirements, and mods requiring it. The 'without an API key' phrase plus the GraphQL title help distinguish it from sibling getters like get_mod, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_mod or list_mods.

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?

'Without an API key' gives implied context for when to choose this tool, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that other tools are the alternatives when an API key is available.

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