faceit_getGame

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 describes the operation as retrieving game details and mentions the HTTP method (GET), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. It also doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or error scenarios. For a retrieval tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 relatively concise at 85 words, but includes endpoint and parameter details that are partially redundant with the input schema. It is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Some minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return type ('Game detail'). It could be enhanced with more detail on the return structure or possible errors, but is sufficiently complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that game_id is 'the id of the game' and a 'string slug', and that it is a path parameter. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal 'Game Id' title. The description effectively documents the sole parameter.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve game details' and specifies fetching the canonical record for one game by its game_id, which is a string slug. It also distinguishes from a sibling tool (getParentGame) for region-specific variants, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use an alternative tool: 'Call getParentGame if the id points to a region-specific variant and you want the parent.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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