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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description still adds real content: it enumerates the returned state (cards, board, pot, stacks, recent action, legal moves only on your turn) and stresses the call is non-blocking. No output schema exists, so this disclosure is doing meaningful work; it stops short of describing failure modes or size/cost of the response.

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?

Three short clauses, with the core capability front-loaded before the usage hint and the sibling pointer. The trailing "Read-only." is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint but costs almost nothing.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden itself, and it does by listing the state fields the agent will receive. Nothing needed to call this correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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") plus the non-blocking qualifier "now, without waiting." That framing cleanly separates it from wait_for_turn, the sibling an agent would otherwise confuse it with.

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 trigger ("after `act` refused a call") and names the alternative for the other case ("to wait for your turn use `wait_for_turn`"). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are explicit.

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