APIbase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It identifies the data source '(RAWG)' and uses 'Get' implying read-only access. However, it omits error handling (what happens if ID not found), rate limits, caching behavior, or whether the call is idempotent/safe that would be essential for a mutation-free tool.

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 with em-dash enumeration of return fields. Every element earns its place: action verb, identifier method, comprehensive return value list, and data source attribution. No redundancy or filler text.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by listing specific return fields (description, platforms, genres, etc.). For a single-parameter lookup tool, this is sufficient context. Minor gap: doesn't mention null/empty response behavior when game ID doesn't exist.

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 including examples ('grand-theft-auto-v', 3498), the schema fully documents the dual-type 'id' parameter. The description reinforces this with 'by ID or slug' but adds no additional syntax details, format constraints, or validation rules beyond the schema baseline.

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'). The enumerated field list (description, platforms, genres, developers, publishers, ratings, Metacritic score, system requirements) clearly distinguishes this from siblings like rawg.games.screenshots (images only) and rawg.games.stores (pricing only), establishing it as the comprehensive data retrieval tool.

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 phrase 'by ID or slug' implies usage context (lookup by identifier vs. browsing), distinguishing it from rawg.games.search. However, it lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this when you have a game ID; use rawg.games.search to find games by name' or prerequisites like needing the ID first.

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