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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the failure mode (unknown ids are a 404) and the input constraint (the canonical type slug is required, not a display name). It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but for a single-record read that is a minor omission.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the sibling disambiguation. Minor redundancy in restating the type values already present in the schema enum-free property description, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, this covers what the schema does not: value-space lookup, slug format, error behavior, and the game-vs-non-game boundary. An agent can call it correctly without further clarification.

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 earns above baseline by adding meaning the schema lacks: the type value space is incomplete by itself and must be enumerated via boardgamegeek_taxonomy, and only the canonical slug is accepted. It also notes the id must be positive, though that largely restates 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+resource ('Get one non-game BoardGameGeek entity by type and id') and immediately scopes it with 'non-game', which cleanly separates it from boardgamegeek_game. The return contents (merged item record with links, images, stats and schema) are named, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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 routing: use boardgamegeek_taxonomy for the complete value space of type, and use boardgamegeek_game for board games themselves. Two named alternatives with the condition that selects each — nothing left to inference.

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