speedrun_get_game

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only lookup with open-world behavior. The description adds useful content by saying the response includes categories and levels, but it does not explain error behavior, rate limits, or response completeness beyond those fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the resource, source, and key included data points efficiently.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with rich read-only annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies the source, resource, and included data. It could be slightly stronger by mentioning that the ID may be an abbreviation or by clarifying error behavior, but no output schema exists to carry return-value details.

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 only parameter, game_id, is fully documented in the schema as a Speedrun.com game ID or abbreviation. The description does not add any parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 of a Speedrun.com game, including categories and levels. This clearly separates it from speedrun_search_games by implying retrieval of an existing game rather than discovery, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as speedrun_search_games for finding a game ID. The intended usage is inferable only from the tool name and the word 'details'.

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