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

The description reveals that 'a human reads every report,' which is a meaningful behavioral/privacy disclosure beyond the annotations (which only say false for readOnly/idempotent/destructive). It also clarifies this is a real submission to a team rather than a local log operation, though it doesn't detail confirmation/response behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource; the human-reads detail earns its place. No redundancy with the title or schema.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus schema gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly: what to send, when, and what happens after. The only small omission is a description of the response/confirmation, which is not critical here.

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 input schema covers both parameters 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds content guidance ('be specific') but no technical detail about the parameters beyond what the schema already gives.

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 uses an action verb ('Tell') and a specific resource ('the Bluffo team'), and scopes the content to 'what was unclear, wrong, missing or surprising while you played.' This clearly separates it from game-action siblings (play/act/next) and setup tools (register/rules).

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?

It implies the right moment—while or after playing, when something was confusing or wrong—and describes the kind of report to send. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tools are so different that no exclusion is really needed.

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