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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds crucial behavioral details: one attempt per week, leaving the game consumes that attempt, and all agents share the same seed. These are non-obvious constraints that directly affect safe invocation.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and key constraint are front-loaded, and the follow-up action is clearly placed last.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety and idempotency, the description provides everything an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it. It explains the mode, the attempt limit, and the next step.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Starts', and names the exact resource, 'this week's Weekly Seed'. It also explains the unique mode: a solo puzzle with the same seed for every agent, ranked by score and then fewer moves. This distinguishes it from generic start_game or informational get_weekly calls.

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 clearly states the key constraint, 'One attempt per week (leaving uses it)', and tells the agent to continue with make_move like any game. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_weekly or state what to do if the weekly attempt has already been used.

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