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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the 50-second blocking cap per call, the yourTurn false return condition, the retry loop, and that it returns the opponent's last move. It is silent on failure modes such as an invalid seatToken or ended/abandoned match behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: the wait operation and its cap first, then the retry instruction, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, blocking semantics, retry policy, and a partial return hint. A brief note on what a finished/failed match looks like would make it complete.

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 (matchId, seatToken) are fully documented in the schema itself, including that seatToken comes from vs_open or vs_join. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb (Espera/wait) plus resource (partida del MODO VS) and the completion condition (hasta que te toque o termine con un tope de 50 s). It is clear this is a blocking long-poll for turn/end, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like vs_get or vs_play, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 operational guidance: if yourTurn is false and the match continues, call again immediately and do not ask the user because that is normal. This is exactly the retry loop guidance an agent needs, though it does not state when NOT to use this tool or point to an alternative for non-blocking status checks.

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