get_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no pagination behavior (limit/offset exist), no note that optional sections cost extra calls or that data may be missing, no return-shape context.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose before the optional expansions. The semicolon-and-parenthetical style is compact and mostly earns its words, though it reads more like a schema comment than prose.

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 six params, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, the definition should carry far more weight. It never mentions pagination defaults/bounds, the images flag, or how achievement_type interacts with the achievements include, so an agent has to guess at key invocation details.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain five of the six 'include' enum values with useful detail (achievements carry rarity/type, progression carries median times). However, limit, offset, and images are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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 ('Game details') that is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_games (search) and get_user_games (user-scoped listing). It is terse and telegraphic, but an agent can tell what the tool retrieves.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can't tell from the description whether this is the right tool versus find_games or get_user_game_progress for a given lookup.

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