bgg_game_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists return fields but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. For a read-only tool without annotations, more behavioral context is expected.

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?

The description is a single sentence (180 characters) that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists the key fields. Every word adds value with no redundancy or waste.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately lists return fields but lacks behavioral context (error handling, ID format requirements, data availability). It is minimally complete for a simple lookup tool but could be improved.

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% with one parameter (gameId) described as 'BoardGameGeek game ID'. The description adds context by stating it retrieves details for a board game by its BGG ID and lists the returned fields, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a board game using its BGG ID and lists the specific fields returned (name, year, rating, players, playtime, description, categories, mechanics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bgg_search (which searches) and bgg_game_reviews (which gets reviews).

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 use when a BGG ID is known and full details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bgg_search to find IDs first, or bgg_game_reviews for reviews). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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