get_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the included data fields and the optional platform filter, making clear what the tool returns. It does not mention error handling or response structure, but the safety profile (read-only) is implicitly evident.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the core function, second lists included fields and the optional filter. No filler, all information earns its place.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return content (critic score, developer, etc.), making the tool's output comprehensible. The optional platform filter adds contextual detail, but ambiguity remains about how filtering affects the response (e.g., whether it affects the platforms array).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the optional platform filter with examples already present in the schema, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool retrieves full details and critic scores for a game by its OpenCritic ID, naming specific fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_game (searching) and get_game_reviews (reviews), which is evident from the context.

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 after obtaining an OpenCritic ID from search_game (via the schema's parameter description and the text 'by its OpenCritic ID'). It also clarifies when the optional platform filter applies, but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get_game_reviews.

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