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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: the response varies by identity, returning your role and, for the clue giver, the secret word. However, it never states that this is a read-only operation, what happens with an invalid or unknown game_id, or whether non-participants get an error or a redacted view.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the payload enumeration comes first. The phrasing is fragmentary ('A word partners game: ...') rather than a full sentence, but it does not waste words.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does reasonably well by listing board, clue, guesses, score, and past rounds. It is still incomplete for a state-fetch tool: it omits access requirements (must you be a participant?), error behavior for bad game_id, and whether past rounds include all history or a window.

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 50%: api_key is documented in the schema, game_id is not. The description adds real meaning to api_key (it reveals your role and, conditionally, the secret word) but says nothing about game_id's source or format, so the undocumented half of the parameters is left entirely to inference.

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 enumerates the resources returned (board, clue, guesses, score, past rounds) which conveys that this is a full game-state read, but it never uses an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and never distinguishes itself from siblings such as words_play, words_clue, or words_guess. An agent can infer the purpose from the content list, but the differentiation is left to the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus words_play, words_clue, words_guess, or words_my_games, and no prerequisites such as needing to be in the game. The only conditional guidance is about what api_key unlocks, which is about output content, not about when to use the tool.

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