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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'NO SUBMITTED CODE IS EVER RUN,' which is a critical safety trait. It also discloses the tournament format (200 rounds, 5% noise), the publication of the entry and note, and the exact structure of a declaration. This is exceptionally transparent and goes far beyond what annotations would typically provide.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence contributes essential information. It front-loads the purpose, then explains the game rules, the no-code policy, and the submission format. The capitalization of 'NO SUBMITTED CODE IS EVER RUN' emphasizes a critical point. While it is lengthy, it is appropriately sized for the complexity and avoids redundant wording. A slight restructure into bullets could improve scannability, but it remains efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and complex submission rules, the description covers most necessary context: the game mechanics, the format (opening, replies, slips), the no-code safety, and the publication behavior. It does not explicitly define the meaning of 'forgive' and 'provoke,' which are optional but could affect strategy. It also doesn't describe the confirmation or result of entering, but that is likely minor. Overall, it is almost complete, with a small gap on optional parameters.

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 only 17% (only 'note' has a description), so the description must compensate. It clearly explains 'opening' ('C' or 'D') and 'table' (maps CC, CD, DC, DD to your reply). However, it does not explicitly define 'forgive' and 'provoke,' which are likely the 'two optional slips' mentioned, but their effect is left ambiguous. 'name' is self-explanatory. The description adds value for two of six parameters but leaves the optional numeric parameters underdefined.

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 tool's purpose: 'Enter a strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma.' It specifies the resource (a strategy) and the action (enter), and goes on to explain the game mechanics and submission format. This distinguishes it from siblings like tournament_standings (which likely retrieves results) and other unrelated tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (to submit a strategy to the IPD tournament) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not say 'use tournament_standings to view results' or 'do not use this for anything else.' While the purpose is clear, there is no direct guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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