Game profiles

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that small result sets are read completely and flagged `complete`: true, while large filters only scan the first `depth` pages of the sorted site list — i.e. results may be partial. It also notes the per-page request cost and that release dates come as Jalali plus ISO.

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-loaded with purpose and use cases, then constraints, then sibling routing — good ordering with no filler. It is dense to the point of being run-on in the middle (depth/complete explanation packed into one long clause), which costs some readability.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema, multi-mode listing tool, it covers modes, constraints, partial-result semantics and next steps well. Minor gap: it does not say what a result entry contains beyond the named fields, nor what happens on invalid slug combinations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning not encoded in the schema: the mutual-exclusivity rule among platform/genre/developer/publisher, that `query` cannot combine with those filters, and that `sort=top_rated` means Gamefa editors' score. The depth/page interaction is explained in prose as well as in 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?

States a specific verb+resource (browse/search Gamefa game profiles) and enumerates the returned data (editors' score, user score, genres, platforms, release date). It also positions itself against siblings by naming gf_game for full profiles and gf_upcoming_games for unreleased titles.

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 example intents ("best rated PS5 games", "games by Capcom", "best games of 2024") plus explicit constraints: at most one of platform/genre/developer/publisher, query works alone. It routes to alternatives explicitly — gf_terms for slugs, gf_game for the full profile, gf_upcoming_games for unreleased.

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