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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses that board metadata (boardType, boardLabel, boardUrl) and a source URL are embedded in the response, and that section filtering is a token-saving mechanism with core metadata always included.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the field inventory, followed by the optional narrowing behavior. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so concretely, including board fields and the site URL. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error behavior for an unknown slug or whether content is paginated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains that 'sections' narrows content and that core metadata survives filtering, which the schema alone states only tersely. It also signals the slug is a single-game identifier.

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 ('Get the complete record for one dart game by slug') and enumerates exactly what the record contains. This clearly separates it from list_games/search_games, which return multiple games rather than one full record.

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 description implies single-game retrieval and mentions optional section narrowing, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_dolf_rules or get_related_games. Discovery guidance exists only in the schema's slug description, not in the tool description itself.

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