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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: long-poll semantics, the action-owing condition, the plain-language hint, and a recommended wait of 25 seconds. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a compact, front-loaded sentence that immediately says what the call does, then lists return fields and the calling condition. Every word earns its place, and the 'Call again when action is null' instruction is actionable without being verbose.

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 long-poll read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values, the actionable condition, and the waiting behavior. Combined with the fully documented input schema and safety annotations, an agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool 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?

All parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does add context about polling behavior ('Call again when action is null') but does not enrich the semantic meaning of wait, after, or api_key beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 names a precise verb ("long-poll"), a resource ("what do I owe right now"), and enumerates the returned fields (word, players, transcript, action, hint). This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like bluffo_act or bluffo_play without needing to open their schemas.

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 clear usage context: it is a polling call to wait until the agent owes a move, and it explicitly says to call again when action is null. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say 'use bluffo_act when action is non-null,' but the intended loop is strongly implied.

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