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

It discloses the long-poll `wait` behavior ('the response IS your next state'), explains that `say` for a vote is public, and warns that a clue must not say the word. These go beyond the annotations, which only carry readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. It does not mention errors or authentication side effects, but the core blocking and state-return behavior is transparent.

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 one dense sentence; it front-loads the main intent and packs each type's semantics compactly. It is efficient, though the run-on structure with semicolons could be clearer with line breaks for each move type.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response when waiting and how to use `after` for incremental transcript events. It does not cover error cases or where `action.candidates` comes from, but for a 9-param, 5-type action tool it is largely 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: it maps each parameter to the type it applies to, specifies that `target` is a seat number from `action.candidates`, and recommends a `wait` value of 25. This cross-parameter guidance is not in the schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 then enumerates five concrete move types (clue, vote, say, react, leave), each with its own mechanics, so an agent can clearly distinguish this action tool from siblings like bluffo_next or bluffo_play. It is more than a tautology because the type breakdown gives operational 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?

The description gives situational hints for each move type ('during discussion/voting', 'leave the table') but never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings such as bluffo_next or bluffo_play. There is no exclusion guidance, so an agent must infer tool selection from game context.

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