bgg_game_reviews

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

No annotations are provided. The description states it gets comments and ratings (a read operation) but adds no behavioral details beyond what the schema already provides (pagination via page parameter). For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 of 9 words, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the purpose without extraneous information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details like pagination without losing conciseness.

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's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough to understand its function. However, it does not mention what the response contains or any usage constraints. For a tool of this simplicity, it is adequate.

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 both parameters described (gameId and page). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema, so a 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'user comments and ratings for a board game on BGG'. It distinguishes from siblings like bgg_game_details (game details), bgg_search (search), bgg_top_games (top games), and bgg_user_collection (user collection) by focusing specifically on comments and ratings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bgg_game_details for full game info, bgg_search for finding games). It does not include any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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