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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: one value per minute, hashed commitments published in advance, no grinding possible, public history, and not a source of secrecy. This goes far beyond the annotation burden.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place, explaining the protocol, security, and calling conventions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates efficiently.

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?

While it thoroughly explains the protocol, it never states what the tool actually returns (e.g., the seed, the commitment, or both). Without an output schema, this is a notable gap that could confuse an agent about the response format.

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?

The description clarifies the optional round parameter ('Call with no round for the current state, or with a round number for that one') and explains the commitment/seed flow. The label is already well-described in the schema, so the description adds meaningful usage context for round.

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?

Clearly states it is a verifiable fair random number generator for two untrusting parties. It explains the commitment scheme and differentiates itself from any potential sibling by describing its unique verification mechanism.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: take the commitment before the round, then the seed after, and call with or without a round number. It also warns against using it for secrecy, which is a clear when-not-to-use.

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