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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: played and held order is optimized rather than evaluated literally, and unsupported effects are rejected. It still omits return format and broader failure behavior, but the added semantics are valuable.

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 terse and front-loads its core claim before adding optimization and rejection semantics. Every sentence contributes some signal, though the opening is jargon-heavy and could be clearer without becoming longer.

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 tool with seven parameters, nested objects, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It omits most parameter semantics and does not describe the return value beyond the vague phrase 'immediate score.' Annotations cover safety, but the remaining gaps are large.

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 0% for seven parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only touches on 'played' and 'held' semantics, and says nothing about contract_version, jokers, levels, discards, or request_id. This leaves most parameter meaning undocumented.

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 presents a noun phrase ('Versioned optimized immediate score from bengine-core') rather than a specific verb-resource statement. It implies that the tool evaluates a hand and computes an optimized score, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like compare_actions or recommend_action. The added notes about optimizing played/held order and rejecting unsupported effects add some specificity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use exclusions, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools. The description only indirectly suggests the tool is for scoring a hand, leaving the agent to infer its role relative to compare_actions, get_solver_capabilities, and recommend_action.

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