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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The phrase 'broad search' adds valuable behavioral context indicating non-exact matching and potentially large result sets. However, it omits return format details, rate limiting, or pagination behavior that would help the agent process results.

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?

Single, efficiently constructed sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the core action ('Search for'), followed by resource, parameter usage, and behavioral characteristic ('broad search'). Every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, but misses opportunity to describe return values (e.g., 'returns list of games with IDs suitable for bgg-details') which would enable better tool chaining with siblings. Meets minimum viable standard.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the 'part of a name' nuance for the query parameter, which expands slightly on the schema's 'Game name to search for'. It doesn't add significant detail about the 'type' or 'limit' parameters beyond what's in the schema.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Search for'), resource ('board games on BoardGameGeek'), and input method ('by name or part of a name'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like bgg-details (which likely requires a specific game ID rather than a search term).

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?

Implies usage through 'by name or part of a name' and 'broad search', suggesting it's for fuzzy matching when the exact game isn't known. Lacks explicit guidance on when to use bgg-details instead (e.g., 'use this when you don't know the game ID').

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