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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the underlying property (game.paused) and specifying the return format (paused: true/false), giving the agent more behavioral context than the annotation metadata alone.

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?

Two short sentences deliver all essential information with no fluff. The action, target field, and return value are each present and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool, this description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, the relevant state field, and the exact returned value, while the annotations cover side-effect safety. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call it correctly that is missing.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description accurately reflects that no arguments are needed by simply being about a state check.

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 clearly states the tool checks the current pause state via a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('game paused'), even referencing the underlying field game.paused. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling game-pause and game-resume tools because it queries rather than mutates.

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 phrase 'Check whether the game is currently paused' makes the read-only usage context clear and implies it should be used to inspect state rather than change it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use game-pause to pause the game.'

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