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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context: it returns only one field of one model, and it clarifies the division of labor between defining a boost here and granting it via Reward/Store/DealOffer/events.

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 critical constraint ('GET ONLY the TimedBoost field') is front-loaded in the first clause. The enumeration of boost types is informative, though 'Granted via Reward, Store, DealOffer, or events' plus the final clause are somewhat redundant with each other.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by explaining that only the TimedBoost field is returned and what it conceptually contains. It does not describe the shape of the returned object, but for a single-field read tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents title_id (albeit in Russian). The description adds no format, scope, or semantics for title_id beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('GET ONLY the TimedBoost field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel') and then defines what a timed boost actually is. An agent can distinguish it from save_timed_boost and get_timed_event without opening any schema.

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 'GET ONLY' framing and 'Define the buff's effect and duration here; granting is done elsewhere' tell the agent this is a read of configuration, not a grant operation. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use for the write path (save_timed_boost), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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