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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the response (two named collections), which is useful, but it says nothing about whether this is a pure read, whether pending invites expire or get consumed, what happens with no games, or how results are ordered or limited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two output groupings are introduced compactly. It is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity ('word partners games'), but nothing is redundant.

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?

With two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a short description is defensible, and the two named collections give the agent a usable mental model. However, the undefined status enum is a real completeness gap for a listing tool, and there is no note on authentication expectations beyond the schema's api_key text.

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, but the status parameter (enum current/all/finished) has no description anywhere. The description never mentions status, its default, or which enum value corresponds to the 'invites_for_you'/'your_turn_in' view it advertises, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the resource as the caller's own word-partner games and enumerates the two result groupings (your_turn_in, invites_for_you), which is enough to distinguish it from words_get_game (single game) and words_leaderboard. It never states the operation as a verb ('lists') explicitly and the phrasing 'Your word partners games' is grammatically awkward, but the intent is recoverable.

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?

Use is implied by the possessive framing ('your games', 'where a partner invited you'), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer words_get_game for a single game, and no guidance on invites that are pending versus declined. The agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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