games_bundles_v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that it is a GET request and requires an API key, but it does not mention response format, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. The phrase 'Bundles including Game' is too vague to understand what data is returned.

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 and front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. It combines multiple pieces of information into one sentence without wasted words. The use of Chinese and abbreviations may reduce clarity for some, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it does not. It also fails to mention the optional parameters (body, headers, oauthToken, pathParams) and only addresses query.id. The reference to an external guide is a partial substitute, but the description alone is insufficient for using the tool effectively.

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%, but the descriptions are generic (e.g., '请求体（可选）' for body). The description adds that id is required, which is already in the schema, and does not clarify what id represents (e.g., game ID vs bundle ID). It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 HTTP method (GET) and resource path (/games/bundles/v2) and gives a brief purpose: 'Bundles including Game'. This distinguishes it from other tools by endpoint, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like games_prices_v3 or games_info_v2.

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 implies usage when you need bundles for a game by specifying the required query parameter id and noting the API key requirement. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or suggest alternative tools, and the pointer to itad://guide/calling is only for call instructions, not for tool selection.

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