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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing that starting stores an anonymous round, that attempts are counted per conversation rather than per person, that playerToken maintains a streak but is not an account or website streak, and that starting does not sign the user into the website. These are state-mutation and identity semantics that no structured field surfaces.

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?

Front-loaded with the core trigger and return value, then layered exclusions and lifecycle notes. It is long — the exclusion list is a dense enumeration and a couple of sentences pack multiple clauses — but nearly every clause carries actionable information rather than repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (single-solution verified puzzle, medium difficulty, one of the listed categories) and the round/streak tokens. What it does not characterize is the puzzle's presentation format, so an agent still learns the shape of the payload only after calling.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds lifecycle meaning: attemptId originates from this tool's own return value and must be replayed on every later call, and playerToken is optional (omit to start fresh). It stops short of restating the enum mapping, which the schema already handles well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('play today's DeducePuzzles board or a daily bank-exam arrangement puzzle') and scopes exactly what is returned: a verified single-solution medium-difficulty puzzle from a daily rotation of listed puzzle families. It is trivially distinguishable from get_hint and submit_attempt, which act on a round rather than starting one.

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?

Gives explicit positive triggers (daily board, bank-exam arrangement puzzle, optional kind), an explicit mismatch behavior ('reports that limitation without starting a round'), and a long exclusion list covering syllogism, quant, GA, billing, user-supplied puzzles, and real-world event seating. The split between 'omit to start' and 'pass attemptId on later calls' also routes the agent within the round lifecycle.

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