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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context (kind taxonomy, that invented games vary by genre and agents play only luck ones), though it does not describe pagination or return ordering behavior.

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?

Front-loads purpose and routing, and every sentence carries routing or taxonomy information. Slight redundancy in the invented-game explanation (kind vs genre vs playability) keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes returned items (kind and id) and how to follow up on each. Pagination behavior via limit/offset is left to the schema, which documents it well.

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% so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's terse 'luck | skill | all' enum: kind=luck spans luck boards AND invented luck games, while kind=skill covers skill games only. That clarifies enum semantics in a way the schema cannot.

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 specific verb and resource ('Browse live games') and its routing role ('start here to find a game's id'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_luck_board, get_invented_game, and list_rooms, so an agent can select it without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit start-here guidance plus named alternatives with the conditions that select them: get_luck_board for luck boards, get_invented_game for invented games, list_rooms for live multiplayer rooms. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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