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. The description adds useful context — the relation types that determine results and that dolfdarts.com URLs are included — but says nothing about result count, ordering, or what happens when no related games exist.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the parenthetical relation types placed where they clarify rather than delay. 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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is close to complete, and it even flags that URLs are part of the payload despite no output schema. Minor gap: no indication of result volume or behavior for games with no relations.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single slug parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase "a given game" maps to the same idea without adding format, slug-source, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 ("List") and resource ("dart games related to a given game") and defines what 'related' means via three relation types. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling recommend_games, so it falls short of a 5, but the resource is 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?

Usage is implied: call it when you have a game slug and want adjacent games. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, and the closest alternative, recommend_games, is never named or distinguished, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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