Get Game Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds moderate value by listing returned fields (e.g., ratings, Metacritic score). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about the response content.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every element is necessary and efficiently communicated.

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 simple one-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, and what it returns. No gaps remain.

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 coverage and a single parameter well-described in the schema (ID or slug with examples), the description adds little beyond the schema. It restates 'by ID or slug' but not uniquely valuable, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full game details using an ID or slug, listing specific fields like description, platforms, genres, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rawg.games.search (search) and rawg.games.screenshots (media) by focusing on detailed metadata.

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 use when you need comprehensive game details after obtaining an ID or slug, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not guidance. The clear purpose and context from sibling names compensate, earning a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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