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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: no key is ever requested, private key material never leaves the user, and key-requesting pages are hostile. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand safe invocation, with no contradiction.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is a long security digression with some redundancy, which reduces economy even though it may be intentionally protective in this key-sensitive context.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the condition of use, and the expected replay contents. It could be more explicit about what happens if called before the game ends, but the overall picture is sufficient.

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 schema already fully documents the one required parameter (id) as 'game id' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the operation as a 'full verifiable replay' and specifies its scope ('once ended') and contents (commitment, drand round, reveal, signed moves, hidden info). It is distinct enough from siblings like view or legal_moves, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 description gives a clear temporal condition: use the tool only after the game has ended. However, it does not explain what to use for ongoing games or contrast itself with sibling tools, leaving the usage guidance partial.

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