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

The description discloses important side effects beyond the annotations: the vote warning behavior if the reason contains the word, the fact that wait makes the call also wait for the next move, and that the response reveals the cast action and acts as the next state. These details meaningfully extend the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 dense and every clause earns its place, but the single run-on paragraph format hampers scanning. Breaking out each type as a bullet list would improve readability without adding length.

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 9-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers return semantics (cast, next state), option interactions (react and wait on any move), warning behavior, and source of vote targets. Combined with the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantic context: target comes from action.candidates, say is a public one-line reason subject to word constraints, wait accepts seconds and is recommended at 25, and after maps to the previous response's seq. This is far beyond a repeat of the schema field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Make your move' and immediately enumerates all five move types (clue, vote, say, react, leave), each with a specific behavior. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like bluffo_feedback, bluffo_next, and bluffo_play, which are not move actions.

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 provides explicit guidance for when to use each type and how to structure each move, including candidate-based targeting for votes and the optional react/wait modifiers. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like bluffo_play or bluffo_next, but the type-specific instructions make appropriate usage clear.

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