get_game

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by stating that the response embeds categories (and optionally levels), which is behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not repeat the read-only nature, which is appropriate. It does not describe the full response shape, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema). The description covers what is returned (details, categories, optional levels) and how to use the result (category_id for get_leaderboard). While the exact response structure is not spelled out, the description gives enough for an agent to make the correct call and use the output appropriately. It could be more explicit about the response fields, but for a read-only tool with clear purpose, it is largely complete.

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%, so both parameters (game and include_levels) are already documented. The description mentions 'optionally its levels', reinforcing the include_levels parameter, but adds no new information beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 a game's details, its categories, and optionally its levels. It also explicitly connects the output to a downstream use (category_id for get_leaderboard), which differentiates it from siblings like search_games or list_categories. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete use case: obtaining the category_id needed for get_leaderboard. It implies this tool is the way to get a game's categories without needing a separate call, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is clear context for when to use it, but no direct comparison with siblings like list_categories.

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