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

The description conveys that the tool is non-destructive and side-effect free, which is appropriate for a state-checking tool. However, it does not elaborate on what 'state' includes, how the 'detail' parameter affects the response, or any potential latency or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description alone carries the transparency burden, and it is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with the most important information. While it earns points for brevity, it lacks structured details about parameters or return values, which would benefit from a slightly longer description.

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?

Given that the tool has a simple input schema (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'detail' parameter's purpose or possible values. For a read-only tool, the description should at least hint at what 'game state' includes. The output schema might compensate, but the description alone is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter guidance. It does not mention the 'detail' parameter at all, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to use it or what values are expected. This is a significant gap.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('current game state'), and explicitly distinguishes from action-oriented tools by adding 'without taking an action'. This directly addresses the sibling tool arcade_action, making purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without taking an action' implies that this tool is for read-only queries, not for mutations. While it does not name alternatives explicitly, the sibling names (especially arcade_action) provide enough context for an agent to infer when to use this tool. However, explicit 'when not to use' guidance is absent.

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