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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates default behavior (returns all matching games) and enumerates return fields (name, ID, rating, plays, status), providing useful output transparency. However, it lacks operational details such as rate limiting, caching behavior, or authentication requirements.

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 consists of three concise sentences totaling under 40 words, with the purpose clearly stated in the opening sentence. While efficiently structured and front-loaded, the third sentence ('Use the filter parameters...') is too vague to fully earn its place given the complexity of the filtering options available.

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 17 parameters with minimal schema documentation and no output schema, the description is incomplete regarding parameter semantics. While it partially compensates by describing the return values (name, ID, rating, plays, status), it leaves the majority of the filtering capability unexplained and provides no guidance on error conditions or edge 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 description coverage is only 6%, leaving 16 of 17 parameters undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'filter parameters' broadly but fails to explain the semantics of critical filters like owned, wishlist, rated, or the rating range parameters (minrating, maxrating). Given the severe schema coverage gap, the description provides inadequate compensatory documentation.

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 provides a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('user's board game collection'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bgg-search (general game search) and bgg-user (user profile data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from bgg-details, which retrieves specific game information rather than collection lists.

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 mentions 'Use the filter parameters to narrow results,' which hints at functionality but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bgg-search or bgg-user. It fails to specify prerequisites (such as requiring a valid public BGG username) or scenarios where this tool would be inappropriate.

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