lookup_gid_title_v1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about optional API keys and environment variable names, and points to a guide resource. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or request body structure, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise, packing method, endpoint, purpose, required/optional fields, and a guide reference into two sentences. Every element earns its place and is front-loaded.

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?

Despite the guide reference, the description is incomplete for a POST endpoint with a required body and no output schema. It omits crucial details like body structure and response format, which the agent needs to correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% but descriptions are generic boilerplate (e.g., 'body' is just 'request body'). The description adds no real parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies. It does not explain what to put in the body or query parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Lookup ITAD game IDs by title' with the HTTP method and endpoint path. This clearly identifies the tool's specific function and differentiates it from siblings like lookup_shopid_gid_v1 or games_search_v1.

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 mentions required body and optional API key, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as games_lookup_v1 or games_search_v1. There are no explicit 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.