Game and version status

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

Read-only is already covered by readOnlyHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond the annotations: login is required, and the returned status is enumerated as one of draft/live/unlisted/banned so the agent knows the value space. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but those are minor for a single-game read.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the mode-switching clause, and every enumerated item is a real field the caller gets back. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, which costs a little scanability, but nothing is padding.

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 2-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, timing, and the alternate mode's contents. Since the output schema documents return shape, omitting return-value format details is fine; only the absence of sibling comparisons keeps it from being fully complete.

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 baseline is 3, and the description earns the extra point by expanding the meaning of the texts flag well past the schema: it returns per-locale listing text statuses (developer-written, machine-translated, missing), the source text to translate from, and the field limits. That tells the agent what the flag actually activates, not just that it includes texts.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ("Shows where one game stands") and then enumerates exactly what is reported: listing status, live version, requested vs live permissions, latest version state, autotest report, reject reasons, previous version states. That enumeration clearly separates it from siblings like gamealia_list_versions (version list only) and gamealia_list_games (game list only).

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?

"Use it after uploading or submitting, and to read a rejection" gives concrete triggering moments, and the "texts:true instead returns..." clause explains when to switch modes. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives to avoid (e.g. list_versions for a bare version list) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not routing.

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