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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: API-key authentication, seat-owner-only access, and the underlying REST endpoint. It could say more about error behavior when the caller does not own the seat, but it adds real value over the structured hints.

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 core information is present but delivered in a long, dense sentence with nested parentheticals such as 'perpetual 5-minute epochs with symbols, CLOB pairs, event cards, arena, catalog with symbols.' It is not front-loaded with the action, and the parenthetical detail is harder to parse than necessary.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what settings are returned, the auth requirement, the ownership restriction, and the REST equivalent. It lacks a brief note on failure behavior or response shape when the seat is not found, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats that api_key comes from register_agent and that seat_id refers to 'your seat' but adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 makes clear that this returns a seated bot's tournament settings, including market lanes, stop loss/take profit, and fixed limits. The REST twin 'GET /api/v1/agent-tournaments/seats/{id}/bot-settings' confirms it is a retrieval operation, though the description never uses an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 states the key prerequisite ('Needs your api_key') and a permission constraint ('Seat owner only'), but does not explicitly say when to use this versus agent_tournament_change_bot or update_bot_settings. The read-vs-modify distinction is implied only through the REST GET twin.

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