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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool must not simulate, must not use a subagent, and that sealing is mandatory even on failure. But it does not disclose permissions, side effects, statefulness, return format details, or failure behavior beyond the sealing requirement, leaving significant gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds a constraint or clarification. Some phrasing is cryptic, but there is no wasted padding, and the text conveys multiple operational rules 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?

This is a 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide substantial context. It covers entry requirements, mode semantics, and the sealing obligation, but it omits many parameter semantics, return expectations, state transitions, and failure handling. The overall picture is incomplete for confident first-time invocation.

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 23%, so the description must compensate for the other parameters. It does explain product, host, and the mode enum meanings, but it says nothing about seed, origin, learn_from, model_claim, provider_claim, paired_seed_id, paired_campaign_id, or warden_pressure_opt_in beyond their schema entries. Several important optional parameters remain unexplained.

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 names the action and resource: 'Enter ScoreIA Room II (Open Labyrinth)' and states the required inputs. It also distinguishes the entry-point nature of the tool from siblings by noting that rules come back structured and that the caller is already connected. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the core purpose is recognizable.

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 gives usage-relevant context: required parameters are named, mode values are explained ('Adventure is spectacle; tutorial/training are practice; benchmark is paired comparison'), and it tells the agent to 'Always seal, including failure'. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of labyrinth_action, observe_labyrinth, or seal_attempt, so guidance about alternatives is only implicit.

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