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 covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: it promises that missing or unreadable pages throw an error and that durations are never fabricated, which tells the agent how to handle failure rather than silently trusting output.

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 compact sentences, zero filler, with the input requirement front-loaded ahead of the error-behavior note. Every phrase carries information an agent can act on.

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 read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, the description covers the essential prerequisite and the failure mode. There is no output schema, so it could say a bit more about what the detail page yields (e.g., duration fields), but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so both parameters (game_id with its "not a Steam app ID" clarification, and detail's compact/detailed enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the ID comes from search; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond what structured data provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a game detail page") and specifies the exact input it needs (an HLTB ID returned by search), which cleanly separates it from the hltb_search_games sibling that produces those IDs. An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 phrase "using an HLTB ID returned by search" establishes the prerequisite workflow and implicitly points to the search sibling as the way to obtain game_id. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or stating when not to use this one, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lowered. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: results are capped at the first upstream page rather than exhaustive, and no account or API key is needed, which tells the agent the call is unauthenticated and may be incomplete.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, then the truncation caveat, then the auth note. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (three time estimates), how much is returned (first page only), and access requirements. What remains unstated, such as response shape and whether pagination is possible, is minor for a search endpoint that returns a capped list.

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 67%: query and detail are documented in the schema, while limit is only constrained (1-20, default 5) with no prose. The description adds nothing about limit, detail, or result-count tradeoffs, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below the baseline for a mostly-documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find games by title') and adds what the results contain (main story, extras, completion times), which is more than a tautology. It implies the search-vs-fetch distinction against the sibling hltb_get_game by scoping itself to title lookup, but never names or contrasts with 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?

'Find games by title' implies the lookup use case, and the note that it returns only the first upstream page sets a boundary on when to rely on it. However, it never states when to prefer hltb_get_game over this search or any prerequisites, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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