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 but only reveals the input mutual exclusivity constraint. It fails to disclose output format (what fields are returned?), similarity methodology, read-only status, or the impact of min_votes on result quality.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose immediately, and the second provides the essential constraint. No fluff or redundant information.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the input requirements but leaves significant gaps regarding return value structure, recommendation ranking logic, and error conditions (e.g., what happens if neither name nor id is provided?).

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds critical semantic information not present in the schema: the mutual exclusivity constraint between 'name' and 'id' parameters, which prevents invalid invocation patterns.

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 specific action ('Get game recommendations'), resource ('board game'), and relationship ('similar to'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like bgg-search (which finds by query) and bgg-details (which retrieves specific game data).

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 an important constraint ('Provide either 'name' or 'id', not both'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like bgg-search or bgg-hot for discovery use cases.

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