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

The readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by listing the returned fields in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention pagination, error behavior for invalid session ids, or whether state is live vs. cached.

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?

One compact fragment with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the returned fields. It is slightly telegraphic (no verb) but nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing structured data lacks: what the response contains. It is nearly complete, missing only failure behavior for a bad session id.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that it is a session id from new_game. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 a concrete resource (session state) and enumerates exactly what is returned: board, score, status, legal_moves. That clearly separates it from make_move and new_game, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: call this to see where a session stands. There is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings such as get_rules or list_games, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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