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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful provenance rule for ids and clarifies that the response includes play instructions, outcomes, and stake menu, but it says nothing about error behavior for unknown or wrong-kind ids, nor about any pagination or size limits.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the returned content is front-loaded before the routing rules. Slightly list-like phrasing in the first sentence, but 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where the id comes from, and how it differs from get_luck_board. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior for an invalid or non-invented id.

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% and there is a single required id, so the schema alone already documents it. The description goes one step further by explaining the id's origin (list_games, kind invented), which is semantics the schema does not carry. It stops short of describing id format or what happens with an invalid id.

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 exactly what the tool returns for an invented game: its description, how to play, outcomes, and stake menu. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_luck_board by naming that sibling as the tool for luck boards. The retrieval verb is left implicit (the sentence is a noun phrase), but the resource and content are unambiguous.

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?

It states where the required id comes from (list_games with kind=invented), and routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools depending on the game type: play_invented_game for solo luck games, join_room for multiplayer ones. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('For luck boards, use get_luck_board'), which is exactly the when-not guidance that prevents sibling confusion.

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