get_game_attrs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints (metric availability, earliest season) and return type (JSON array). This is valuable, though it omits potential error cases or pagination, which is acceptable for a simple query tool.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose, then organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 two simple parameters and no nested objects, the description fully covers the necessary context: metric semantics, availability, and return format. An output schema exists but is not needed to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the 'metric' options, default values, and temporal restrictions, and clarifies 'season' defaults and earliest year. The schema only provides titles and defaults, so this description is essential.

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's function: 'Get top games ranked by game attributes.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on 'game attributes' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ratings or get_efficiency.

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 provides clear usage context by detailing parameter options, defaults, and availability constraints (e.g., 'FanMatch', 'Upsets', 'Busts' only after 2010). It does not explicitly mention when to use this over siblings, but the attribute-focused nature makes the intended use clear.

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