Upcoming game releases

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by warning that far-off dates may be placeholders and that far-ahead months scan up to `depth` pages, which implies multiple requests and latency. It does not describe pagination limits or the shape of returned items, leaving some behavioral detail unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the definition before use cases, caveat, and next steps; no filler. The sentence 'Months far ahead scan up to `depth` pages' is slightly opaque without reading the schema, costing a point on structure.

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 six-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, data reliability caveats, and follow-up tools, which is close to complete. The one gap is the return payload: it mentions ISO release dates and implies slugs but never states what a result item contains.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by showing the `month` parameter in a realistic query ('games releasing in December 2026') and by framing `depth` as a cost tradeoff for distant months. Genre/platform filtering is not elaborated in the description, which keeps it from a 5.

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 resource with a clear scope constraint: 'List games that have not been released yet, soonest first (Gamefa's release calendar), with ISO release dates.' The 'not released yet' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling gf_games, and the ordering rule is stated up front.

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 ('what comes out next', 'upcoming PS5 games', 'games releasing in December 2026') and ties the month case to the `month` parameter. It also routes onward to the right siblings: gf_game for per-title detail and gf_search_articles for news coverage.

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