ask_bgg_rules_lawyer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results come from 64 pre-harvested shards plus live api.geekdo.com with zero auth required, and it fans out into multiple endpoints. It does not disclose latency, rate limits, or behavior when a game has no forum threads, which matters for a multi-endpoint fan-out call.

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?

A single ~120-word sentence front-loads marketing labels rather than the action. Trademark strings, the TAPE identifier, and the Michelin-token joke consume substantial space without helping an agent decide or call correctly. The actionable content would fit in two tight sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back; it lists the inputs consulted and the Tier 1/2/3 verification concept, which is the most valuable part, but never states the response shape (matched questions? thread links? a synthesized answer?). It also omits the soup-kitchen watermark behavior except indirectly through the token parameter.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the same objectid examples the schema already gives (292894, 237182, 224517) and adds no format or precedence guidance, such as whether objectid or game_name wins when both are supplied — a real ambiguity given both are optional.

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 names a specific resource and a concrete chain of actions: look up a BGG game by objectid or name, pull designer/publisher IDs, list rulebook/FAQ files, scan rules-forum threads, and cross-reference responders against user profiles to assign an authority tier. That is far more specific than the name alone. It loses a point because the core purpose is buried under branding ('TAPE-0078', '4-Tier Poster Authority Verifier', 'Chez Rawstone Michelin Token') that an agent must filter out.

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: the required 'question' parameter and the forum-search mechanics signal 'use this to answer a board game rules question.' There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over other data sources, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do when no authoritative responder is found.

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