games_historylow_v1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and points to an external guide, but does not describe the actual operation, effects, data returned, or any potential side effects or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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 and front-loaded with the endpoint and method, followed by requirements. It is appropriately short for a simple wrapper tool, though the reference to the external guide could be seen as a fallback rather than a complete description.

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?

The tool is a POST endpoint with a required body, yet the description does not explain what the body should contain, what the response looks like, or how it relates to sibling history tools. Without annotations or an output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that body is required, which the schema already states, and adds no information about the body structure or query/header semantics. It only references an external guide for details, which does not directly enrich the parameter meaning.

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 identifies the endpoint path and label 'History Low' but does not clearly state what the tool does or what 'History Low' means. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling tool games_history_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as games_history_v2 or games_storelow_v2. The description only states required body and API key, and points to an external guide resource, but does not explain use cases or exclusions.

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