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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses the approximate 40-second wait, the three possible result shapes, and the session-termination conditions. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a blocking/polling tool.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded with the core action and timing. The remaining sentences each convey distinct, useful information about return values and how to proceed after a non-turn response.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: full spot state, legal moves, chat lines, and the normal not-your-turn result. It also explains when the session ends, leaving no critical ambiguity for 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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and there is no schema gap the description needs to compensate for.

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 states a specific verb and resource: wait until it is your turn at your table, and it enumerates what the tool returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like act, say, and view_table because it describes polling behavior and turn notifications rather than making a move or viewing a table.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call it again when the result is "not your turn yet" and that this outcome is normal. It also identifies the only conditions that end the session, and indicates that `say` is the right tool for replying to table chat.

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