rawg_get_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior for an invalid/missing ID, no indication of response size or rate limits, and no detail on what 'details' includes.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing constraint (ID or slug) lands immediately. It is efficient but also stops short of any structure that would help an agent recover from a failed lookup.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, this is close to sufficient — the agent knows the key and the operation. Gaps remain around what 'details' returns and how the secondary `api_key` parameter is meant to be supplied, which the description leaves entirely to the caller.

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 50%: `id` is documented in the schema and the description merely restates that it accepts an ID or slug. The undocumented `api_key` parameter is not addressed at all, and no format examples (numeric ID vs. hyphenated slug) are given beyond the schema's own wording.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get details for a specific game') and identifies the lookup key (RAWG ID or slug). It is clearly distinct from rawg_search_games by implying a direct identifier lookup rather than a query, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the right choice when it already holds an ID or slug. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over rawg_search_games, nor any note about what to do when only a title is known.

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