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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned record (teams, start time, status, period, score) but says nothing about missing/unknown-id behavior or freshness of live data.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the lookup key and followed by the returned field list. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields covers the main gap an agent would otherwise face. Only the not-found/error path is left unaddressed, which is a minor omission.

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 parameter's description already explains provenance (aura_list_games or aura_live_games). The description's mention of 'Aura game id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (implicitly 'get') and resource ('One game by Aura game id') plus the payload it returns, which clearly separates it from the list-style siblings. It does not name any sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 only implied: you must already have an Aura game id. The fact that the id comes from aura_list_games or aura_live_games appears in the schema, not the description, so the description itself gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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