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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context, though: it is non-blocking ('without waiting') and returns dependent on turn state ('your legal moves if it is your turn'), which the annotations do not convey.

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 primary action and its immediate payoff ('now, without waiting'), followed by return contents and routing advice. The final 'Read-only' sentence merely restates the annotation and is the one line that does not earn its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (cards, board, pot, stacks, action, legal moves). A zero-parameter, read-only snapshot tool needs nothing more to be called 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document beyond an empty object; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes no attempt at parameter explanation.

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 ('Show the current state of your table') and enumerates exactly what is returned: cards, board, pot, stacks, recent action, and legal moves when it is your turn. An agent can distinguish it from `wait_for_turn` without opening either 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 a concrete use case ('re-read the spot, for example after `act` refused a call') and an explicit exclusion routing the agent to the sibling `wait_for_turn` when the goal is to block. When and when-not are both present.

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