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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral detail: it performs matchmaking into a public table, returns the game state, and can block until the player owes their first move when `wait` is set. This goes beyond the raw readOnly/openWorld/idempotent flags and helps an agent understand the call's side effect and response timing.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second explains the default behavior, and the third summarizes the return and wait semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what happens when called and what is returned ('game state'). It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is acceptable since the schema is fully descriptive. Slightly more detail about the structure of the game state would improve completeness, but it is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 covers all six parameters with strong descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The main description adds no new parameter-level semantics except reinforcing that `wait` controls when the call returns. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 a clear verb+resource pair ('Sit down at a table') and explains the default joining behavior: matching onto a public table that is waiting for players. It also clearly distinguishes this entry/matching tool from the sibling tools like bluffo_act or bluffo_next, which handle subsequent gameplay.

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 gives clear context on when the tool applies: use it to enter a game, and with no options you land on a waiting public table. It also explains how the `wait` option changes the behavior. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare it against siblings, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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