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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what happens to the stack at the next hand boundary and the return of buy-in/fee before a tournament starts. This is useful behavioral detail, though it doesn't cover edge cases like leaving a tournament after it has begun.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action and key behavioral rules are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 primary scenarios (cash and tournament pre-start) but omits important edge cases (e.g., tournament after start, not being seated, errors). Combined with the unexplained parameters, the agent may face ambiguity when calling the tool in less common situations.

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%, and the description makes no mention of the 'owner' and 'tableId' parameters. The agent must infer their meaning from context, which is risky—'owner' could refer to the table owner or the player. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 ('Stand up from a cash table') and differentiates the outcome for cash and tournament contexts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like poker_sit (sitting down) and poker_act (acting), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 gives context on when the behavior applies (cash table vs. tournament before start) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., what happens if the tournament already started). Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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