game_news

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the '(1-20 items)' result-range constraint, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether patch notes and news are interleaved.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and the result bound front-loaded; nothing is padded or redundant. It is arguably too terse for a 0%-coverage schema, but every element it does include 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 simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves open what each item contains (title, date, body?), how results are ordered, and what app_id must be, which an agent would need before calling confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partially does: the '(1-20 items)' clause supplies an upper bound for count that the schema lacks. The required app_id parameter is never explained (presumably a store app identifier), leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific resource (patch notes and news posts) scoped to a game, which is clearly distinct from siblings like search_games, game_details, or review_summary. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous enough that an agent can differentiate it without opening the schema.

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 versus game_details (which may also surface descriptive text) or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The word 'Latest' weakly implies a recency-oriented use case, but nothing tells the agent when this is the wrong tool.

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