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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds valuable operational context beyond that: a call whose price rose is refused unless max_cost covers it, max_cost caps any move, and the return format is specified. It stops short of describing every failure mode, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and usage rule, then layers the amount semantics and return behavior efficiently. Slightly repetitive in restating the 'wait and return your next spot' outcome in both the first and last sentences, keeping it from a 5.

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 mutating game action with 5 parameters, no output schema, and only partial annotation coverage of behavior, the description supplies everything an agent needs: turn-state prerequisite, action legality, amount semantics, optional flavour fields, cost cap/refusal rule, and return format. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a concrete, high-value example for bet/raise amount ('facing a bet of 100 with 0 in, raise to 300 is amount=300, not 200') that clarifies a common mistake. It also reiterates say/emote as optional flavour and max_cost's dual role, though those are already in the schema 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?

States a specific verb ('make your move') and resource (a poker turn action), and clearly distinguishes this from waiting/viewing with its 'one call per turn' framing. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use it only when a spot from `wait_for_turn` or `view_table` indicates it is your turn, and to call `wait_for_turn` instead while it is someone else's turn. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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