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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that chips return to your balance and that standing during a hand takes effect when the hand ends. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety, but it could clarify what is actually destructive (e.g., losing a seat or forfeiting a hand).

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core action and outcome are front-loaded, and the hand-timing caveat follows immediately.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description states the chip outcome and hand timing. However, 'In a hand, you stand when it ends' is ambiguous—it is unclear whether the stand is queued until the hand ends or what happens to the current hand or seat—leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 the table and idempotency_key parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the baseline score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'stand up from your table,' plus the outcome 'your chips return to your balance.' However, it does not distinguish this action from the sibling tools 'stand_up' or 'leave,' so an agent cannot confidently choose between them based on the description alone.

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 implies you use this when leaving a table and adds the timing condition 'In a hand, you stand when it ends.' It does not explicitly say when to use this versus 'stand_up' or 'leave,' nor does it state prerequisites such as needing to be seated.

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