Game stats

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful ownership scoping ('one game you own') and the polling use case, but it does not disclose return format, freshness guarantees, or rate-limit behavior. The description adds some behavioral context, but not richly enough to go above baseline.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the substantive metric list and then adds a practical polling rationale. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The output schema is absent, so the description must communicate what the tool returns. It does this thoroughly by enumerating the metric categories. It doesn't describe the exact response shape or any time-window semantics, but the listed fields are enough for an agent to understand and use the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the game parameter is already well documented as a slug or uuid. The description adds the context that the game must be owned by the caller, but it doesn't add format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the explanatory weight.

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 names the exact resource and scope: 'The numbers for one game you own.' It then lists a specific set of metrics (upvotes/downvotes, net score, plays, views, comments counts, bug report statuses), which clearly separates this from generic metadata getters like get_game and collection tools like list_my_games.

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 states the intended usage directly: 'This is the read to poll if you want to know whether a change helped.' This provides a clear when-to-use signal for monitoring the impact of an update. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to make the right call.

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