Game profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that slugs are cross-tool currency (reusable as gf_games filters) and that the review URL is meant to be consumed via gf_article. It does not say what happens for an unknown slug, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Front-loads the primary return fields in the first sentence and relegates secondary fields and the cross-tool hints to the second, so the agent gets the essentials first. The field enumeration is dense but every item is a real return value, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including which fields are actionable links to other tools. For a one-parameter read tool this leaves nothing an agent needs missing.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema with a pattern and an example. The description adds only the framing that exactly one game is targeted, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 singular resource ("Get one game's Gamefa profile") and then enumerates the payload: editors' score, user score and votes, Metacritic, release date, description, platforms, genres, developers, publishers, website, playtime and review URL. The singular "one game" clearly separates it from the list-oriented siblings gf_games and gf_upcoming_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?

Gives concrete usage context: the slug must come from gf_games or gf_upcoming_games, and the returned platform/genre/developer/publisher slugs can be fed back into gf_games as filters. It also routes the review URL to gf_article. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement, but the single-entity scope makes the alternative obvious.

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