bgg_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description repeating it. The description adds only the external-source and name-based search context, with no contradiction and no additional detail about rate limits or result behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the essential action and resource immediately.

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 simple read-only search tool with full parameter descriptions and clear annotations, the description is sufficient to select and call the tool. It does not describe return values or how results should be chained into bgg_game_details, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 schema fully documents both 'query' and the optional 'type' enum. The description reinforces that searching is by name but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: search BoardGameGeek for board games by name. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bgg_game_details, bgg_top_games, and bgg_user_collection, which retrieve details, rankings, or user collections rather than perform a name search.

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 phrase 'by name' implies the tool should be used when the caller has a game name to look up, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over bgg_game_details or other BGG siblings. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully specified.

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