igdb_search_games

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 does not disclose authentication requirements (client_id, client_secret), rate limits, search behavior (fuzzy vs exact), or what the response contains. The schema hints at credentials, but the description omits this critical context.

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 a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what results look like, how to handle authentication, or any constraints (e.g., default limit, max results). This leaves an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond 'by name' which corresponds to the query parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 'Search the IGDB games database by name' clearly states the action (search), the resource (IGDB games database), and the parameter (by name). It differentiates from sibling tools like igdb_get_game which retrieves a specific game, and igdb_search_games is unique among the igdb siblings.

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 implies usage when searching games by name but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like igdb_get_game for exact matches or igdb_list_genres for genre searches. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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