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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context about the exact data returned (estimation scale, progress, current task, join link). It is consistent with the annotation and gives the agent a clear expectation of the response content.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. The first sentence immediately states what the tool does, and the second sentence succinctly redirects to a sibling tool. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content well and mentions the related sibling tool. It could mention when to use this tool (e.g., needing a single game's overview) but the 'one' keyword implies that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter game_id with a basic description. The description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Returns one planning poker game' with a specific list of included fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like poker.games.list by emphasizing 'one' game and from poker.game.tasks.list by explicitly noting the difference.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use poker.game.tasks.list for the tasks themselves.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool, helping avoid confusion with the sibling tool that returns task details.

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