get_game_records

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: with top=1 it returns every category's world record at once, and include_levels=True can produce large responses for level-heavy games. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, followed by two short sentences explaining the top parameter and the include_levels size caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the schema describes all parameters, and annotations cover read-only/open-world behavior, the description is largely complete. It explains the default behavior and the main risk (level-heavy games producing large payloads). It stops short of describing the response shape, but that is a minor gap for a relatively straightforward list/records tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the real-world meaning of top=1 ('every category's world record at once') and warning that include_levels=True 'pulls every individual-level board' and can be large. Game is simple enough that the schema already covers it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a game's records across all its categories in one call.' It clearly distinguishes this aggregate tool from siblings like get_world_record or get_leaderboard by emphasizing the all-categories-at-once scope.

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 gives a clear intended use case: 'handy for "show me all the records for <game>"' and explains the default top=1 behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_world_record or get_leaderboard or say when not to use them, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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