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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: filters combine with AND and the result set is returned in full, ordered by title. It does not mention any result cap or pagination, so an agent cannot be fully sure the response is bounded.

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 sentences, no filler. The scope statement comes first, the prerequisite second, and the filter/ordering behavior last, so an agent gets routing information before implementation detail.

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 zero-required-parameter, nine-argument read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites, filter combination and result ordering. It doesn't explain the owned-vs-wishlist default or what a game record contains, but the latter is largely inferable from the filter fields.

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 per-parameter meaning is already handled and the baseline would be 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics that the schema cannot express: every filter is optional and they intersect via AND, which materially affects how an agent builds a query.

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 (search) plus a precisely scoped resource: board games owned or wishlisted by a named Kallax.io user or community. That ownership/community scoping is what separates it from the sibling find_games, which operates on the general game catalog rather than a specific collection.

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?

"Requires a username, a community name, or both" is an explicit precondition, and "All filters are optional and combined with AND" clarifies how the remaining arguments behave. It never names find_games as the alternative for catalog-wide lookups, so the when-not case is left to inference.

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