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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to explain what destruction means here — and it does: seat reopens pre-game, current hand is folded mid-game, and chips are returned to the user's account. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., calling while not seated) or what 'Returns what happened' actually yields, which keeps it from a 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-loaded with the action and then the three relevant state outcomes, with no wasted preamble. The closing sentence 'Returns what happened.' is vague filler that adds little beyond signaling that a result exists.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how it behaves in each game phase, where the chips go, and when not to bother calling. Annotations carry the safety profile, so no gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly spends no words on nonexistent inputs.

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 and resource ('Leave your table') that is unambiguous and inherently distinguished from the sibling join_table. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs 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?

Gives clear usage context broken out by phase (before start vs. during play) and an explicit exclusion ('Not needed when a table ends: the seat is released by itself'), which prevents a pointless call. No alternative is named, but the counterpart (join_table) is self-evident from the sibling list, so this stops just short of a 5.

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