get_game_details

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating authentication requirements ('Requires authentication') and clarifying the tool's purpose for review before changes. While it doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, it provides useful behavioral guidance that complements the annotation.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating what the tool returns, when to use it, and prerequisites. There's no wasted verbiage, and the most critical information (what data is returned) 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?

For a read-only tool with good annotations and a simple single-parameter schema, the description provides excellent context about authentication, usage timing, and data scope. The only minor gap is lack of output format details (though no output schema exists), but overall it's highly complete for this complexity level.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single 'game_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get full game info') and enumerates the exact data returned (name, description, component list with quantities, file references, and pricing). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_game_catalog' (likely listing games) and 'get_component_details' (focusing on components).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to review a game before making changes') and implies alternatives by mentioning prerequisites ('Get this from the get_my_games tool'). It clearly positions this as a read-before-write tool, distinguishing it from mutation tools like 'update_game' or 'create_game'.

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