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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that a refusal spends the turn token and that you must fetch a new one via poker_seat, indicating a state-changing side effect. It also clarifies that the amount is the total, not an increment. While it doesn't mention other side effects like updating game state, the key behaviors are covered.

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 sentences, no filler, and the key instruction 'Your move' is front-loaded. Every clause adds value, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 poker action, it covers the actions, amount semantics, token requirement, and what to do on refusal. It doesn't describe the return value, but since there's no output schema, that's a minor gap. The pointer to re-read the seat after refusal provides sufficient context for the agent to proceed correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'type' implicitly through the listed actions, 'amount' for bet/raise, and 'turn' as the token from poker_seat. However, 'owner' and 'tableId' are not explained, leaving gaps. The description covers 3 of 5 parameters partially, but not fully.

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 action (fold/check/call/bet/raise) on a poker game and references the turn token from poker_seat, distinguishing it from sibling tools like poker_seat (reading state) and poker_hands (viewing hands). The verb and resource are specific and 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?

It explicitly instructs to use the turn token from poker_seat and clarifies that bet/raise take the total amount. It also notes that a refusal consumes the token and advises re-reading the seat, giving practical usage context. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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