get_game_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'gets prices and deals' but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the gameId must be obtained from another tool, what stores are covered, if the results include discounts, or any authentication requirements. Minimal transparency.

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?

One sentence, no redundant words, and front-loaded with the action. It is concise and efficient, though lacks any structural elements like bullet points or sections. It 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value contains (e.g., list of stores with prices), how deals are determined, or how to obtain the gameId (e.g., via search_games). An agent would need additional context to use this effectively.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: 'gameId' is described as 'unique game ID from gg.deals' and 'region' with default 'us'. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides full parameter semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('current prices and deals for a specific game across various stores'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'get_game_bundles' (bundles) and 'get_historical_low' (historical prices), so an agent can differentiate it.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'get_game_bundles' should be used for bundle deals or that 'get_historical_low' is for historical prices. An agent is left to infer context from tool names alone.

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