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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that the response changes shape once sealed (results vs. card), though it does not describe the format or completeness of that returned data.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the primary payload description is front-loaded before the sealed-card alternative. Its brevity is close to the lower bound of what is intelligible, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description does roughly enough by sketching the returned content. It falls short on prerequisites (needing an enter_forge handle) and on clarifying the cryptic game vocabulary, leaving an agent to guess at the domain.

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 single forge_handle parameter is fully documented in the schema as the value returned by enter_forge. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (your passes / your card) and enumerates the content returned (scores, best, last judgement), so the retrieval intent is inferable. However, the verb is never stated and the domain vocabulary ('passes', 'card once sealed') is opaque without prior knowledge, and no sibling such as duel_status is distinguished.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The clause 'or your card once sealed' hints at a state-dependent behavior but does not tell an agent which sibling (lice_run, lice_seal, enter_lice) to pick or whether a prior enter_forge call is mandatory.

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