List / Find Games (GraphQL)

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond these annotations by stating that no API key is needed and that the returned domain names are the scoping values downstream tools depend on.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most relevant auth fact and workflow context.

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 list/find tool with zero required parameters and safety annotations, this covers purpose, output substance, workflow usage, and auth requirements. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly naming what is returned.

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 schema documents 'query' as a partial game name and constrains 'count' with defaults/min/max, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. 'count' lacks a prose description, but its constraints make it reasonably inferable; a brief mention would have improved the score.

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?

States a specific action ('Find games') and a concrete output ('their domain names'), and frames it as the prerequisite for all game-scoped tools. This clearly distinguishes it from get_game and the search-focused siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when this tool should be used: before any game-scoped tool, since it supplies domain names those tools need. It lacks explicit discussion of alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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