faceit_getOrganizerGames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the HTTP endpoint (GET) and that it returns a 'Games list,' but lacks details on pagination, sorting, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is adequate but minimal.

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 very concise: a one-line purpose, a usage statement, the endpoint, parameter details, and a returns line. No redundant information; every part earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, the parameter, and return type. It could be improved by mentioning potential pagination or rate limits, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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 input schema only provides a title and type for organizer_id, with 0% coverage (no description in schema). The tool description adds context: it is a path parameter, required, and 'The id of the organizer.' This adds meaningful information beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve all games an organizer is involved with') and the resource ('games an organizer runs events for'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getOrganizerChampionships or getOrganizerHubs by specifically returning games.

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 explains when to use: 'to list the games an organizer runs events for.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names.

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