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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals some specifics (atomic buyIn, 10% fee for tournaments, actSeconds as clock) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a table is created immediately, permission requirements, or success/failure behavior). The lack of annotations makes this a significant gap.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a few sentences to convey the key distinctions without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured for parameter grouping.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the purpose of host, network, and name, and does not mention the return value or any side effects. While it covers the core poker-specific parameters, it leaves critical operational details unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to several parameters (seats, bigBlind, smallBlind, minBuyIn, maxBuyIn, buyIn, actSeconds) and clarifies format-specific usage. However, it does not explain host, name, or network, which remain opaque. Partial compensation only.

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 'Open a poker table' and specifies the resource and variant-specific parameters (cash vs tournament). It distinguishes from sibling tools like poker_act, poker_sit, and poker_leave by focusing on the creation of a new table, which is 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?

The description implies when to use it (to open a new poker table) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. While the verb 'open' makes the context clear, there is no guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to other poker tools like poker_seat or poker_join.

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