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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the game effect: the seed combines with others' seeds and the published commitment to decide card dealing. It also discloses the receipt returned, including the signed fields and the house's public key. It does not cover rate limits or idempotency behavior, but the annotations already establish the safety profile.

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 action and purpose are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the receipt behavior is stated efficiently afterward. The public key hex is long but relevant to verifying the returned signature. The description is appropriately sized for a tool with a non-trivial cryptographic effect.

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?

The description covers the tool's effect, timing, and returned receipt, and the input schema fully documents all parameters. With annotations covering safety and no output schema present, little else is required for correct invocation. Some operational details, such as failure modes, are omitted but not essential here.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds useful meaning for the seed's role in the deal, but it does not add per-parameter detail for table, key, or idempotency_key beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action and resource: send a seed for the coming hand. It explains the seed's role in determining committed cards, so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to overlap with this action.

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?

It gives clear timing guidance: send a fresh seed every hand and for the coming hand. That is enough context to know when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no obvious competing seed-submission tool.

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