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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact verdict categories, the 8 MB text scanning limit, the requirement to pass all file paths with relative forward-slash paths, and the iterative 'fix and rerun' workflow. It also explains the meaning of 'broken' ('the game will not start'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/verdict, input preparation rules, and post-check workflow. It is front-loaded with the main verb and result, and contains no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (verdict types) and provides all necessary input constraints and the recommended follow-up action. For a pre-upload validation tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical parameter semantics: 'every file path in the folder', 'relative to the folder, forward slashes', which files need text (index.html plus .html/.css/.js files), and the 8 MB total text cap. This meaningfully extends what the schema alone provides, helping the agent construct the `files` array correctly.

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 ('Runs YouGame's pre-upload checks'), a specific target ('build folder'), and a clear output ('verdict: ready, risky, or broken'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_game, fetch, or search by defining exactly what it checks and what it returns.

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 workflow context: run it before upload, fix reported issues, rerun until ready, then zip and upload. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the pre-upload placement and 'until the verdict is ready' instruction make the usage window clear.

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