FreeToGame Game Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing the data source (FreeToGame API) and that no auth is required, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits or response format, but the output schema exists and the annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource; the second adds provenance and auth context. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns, the data source, and auth requirements. The only minor gap is not mentioning rate limits or pagination, but neither is relevant for a single-ID detail endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100%: the id parameter is described as 'FreeToGame game ID (e.g. 540 for Overwatch)' with exclusiveMinimum 0. The description reinforces that the ID identifies a single game and that the response is full details. The example ID adds practical value beyond the schema's type constraint.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get full details'), a specific resource ('a single free-to-play game by ID'), and enumerates the exact content returned (status, full description, minimum system requirements, screenshots). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like freetogame.games.list and freetogame.games.filter_by_tag, which are list/filter operations.

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?

The description implies usage context: use this when you need full details for a single game by ID, as opposed to list or filter operations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by ID' qualifier and the content list make the use case clear. A small gap: no explicit mention that this is the detail counterpart to freetogame.games.list.

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