APIbase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It compensates by enumerating returned fields (storyline, genres, platforms, etc.), giving insight into data richness, but lacks operational details like rate limits, error handling, or safety profile.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with action and resource, followed by dash-separated enumeration of specific return fields. 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?

Given no output schema exists, the description effectively compensates by listing nine specific data fields returned. Adequate for a simple single-parameter lookup tool, though could improve by mentioning return structure (single object vs array) or error cases.

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 has 100% description coverage with example value (1877). Description mentions 'by IGDB ID' reinforcing the parameter's purpose, but adds no syntax, format constraints, or lookup instructions beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' + resource 'game details' + scope 'full' and distinguishes clearly from sibling tools: unlike igdb.games.search (which finds games) and igdb.games.media (which gets media), this retrieves comprehensive metadata by ID.

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?

Clear context provided by 'by IGDB ID' indicating this requires a specific numeric identifier, implying prerequisite use of igdb.games.search. However, it doesn't explicitly name the search tool as the alternative or describe the workflow.

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