query_spiel_essen_convention_radar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the scope of the dataset (1,302+ releases, 23 sell-outs) and that sell-outs carry BGG contributor attribution. It says nothing about response size, pagination, or that the underlying data is a static snapshot file.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the whole definition is one run-on sentence padded with promotional strings ('Free Open-Source Tool, CC0 Metadata') and a parenthetical attribution clause that do not help tool selection. Trimming the marketing would make it materially tighter.

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?

With three optional parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description is roughly adequate for invocation. However, since there is no output schema, it should describe the shape of a returned record (fields for a preview, a sell-out, a ranking entry); an agent currently cannot anticipate the response structure at all.

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%, with the category enum values and the michelin_token gating already documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 verb ('Queries') and a specific resource ('bgg_convention_radar_2026.json') and enumerates the data sets returned (releases, previews, sell-outs, Fairplay rankings). No sibling tool covers convention data, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, and marketing framing ('Free Open-Source Tool, CC0 Metadata') dilutes the opening.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for SPIEL/Gen Con convention questions, and nothing tells it what to do for adjacent needs (e.g., rules questions handled by ask_bgg_rules_lawyer).

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