games_storelow_v2

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and prerequisites. It mentions the need for an API key and a required body, and the POST method implies a mutation, but it does not disclose what changes occur, whether results are persisted, rate limits, error cases, or what happens on success. The external resource pointer shifts responsibility rather than disclosing behavior.

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 short and to the point, but it sacrifices useful content for brevity. The first sentence is the endpoint and label, the second mentions requirements, and the third points to external docs. No information is wasted, but the structure is not front-loaded with the most critical functional details.

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?

This is a POST endpoint with a required body, API key prerequisites, nested objects in schema, and no output schema. The description is incomplete: it does not explain the purpose, request format, response structure, or practical usage. The pointer to an external resource suggests the description itself is not self-contained, which is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'request body (required)') and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating '必填: body'. The description does not clarify what the body should contain or what query/path parameters are valid for this endpoint.

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 '[POST] /games/storelow/v2 - Store Low' which is only a vague label and endpoint, not a clear explanation of the tool's function. It does not distinguish itself from many sibling games_* tools, leaving the agent unsure whether this retrieves store-specific low prices, sets low-price alerts, or performs some other operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that a body is required and an API key is needed, but does not describe the typical use case, target audience, or relationship to other tools like games_prices_v3 or deals_v2. The pointer to itad://guide/calling is a resource for instructions, not a usage guideline.

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