compare_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe external read. The description adds the 15-appid cap and the default dataset, which is useful context, but it says nothing about cost, latency, or partial-result behavior beyond that.

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 comparison scope in the first sentence, then the default, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place, though the inline Args formatting is slightly verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a read-only comparison tool, the description covers scope, default behavior, mutual parameter meaning, and the 15-item limit, leaving little an agent needs unstated.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and it does: path is 'the game's folder to compare with its market study', and appids is 'games to compare instead', capped at 15, with store_lookup noted as the id source. This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented 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 (compare) and resource (games) and enumerates the exact dimensions compared (price, reviews, positive share, players right now, release, modes, Steam features). It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by tying the default to study_market and store_lookup, though it doesn't explicitly name what it is not.

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?

Explains the default behavior (market study games plus this game once live) and how to override it with appids, pointing to store_lookup for discovering ids. Clear context for when each parameter applies, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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