Game reviews with scores

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious traits: reverse-chronological ordering, post-pagination filtering (a page may return fewer than `limit`), and missing score boxes on older reviews. The only unaddressed area is pagination bounds/termination behavior across the 500-page range.

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 what the tool returns and in what order, then pivots to usage, then to caveats and alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information; the Persian gloss is functional for matching native queries rather than decorative.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the missing-score edge case. For a five-parameter read-only list tool it leaves nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: `year` is scoped to a single publishing year, and `min_score` is disclosed as being applied after paging rather than during it, which changes how an agent should interpret short result pages. `query` and `page` semantics are left entirely to 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 the specific verb and resource ("List Gamefa's game reviews"), the ordering (newest first), and the payload (editors' score out of 10, label, pros and cons). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings — gf_article for full text, gf_game for a game's profile score.

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 trigger phrases ("how did Gamefa rate X", "latest reviews") plus the narrowing conditions for `year` and `min_score`. It also names the two alternatives and when to prefer them, so routing is unambiguous.

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