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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Play your turn" implies a state-mutating action, but nothing is said about what happens to an invalid order set, whether the turn is committed irreversibly, or what the caller receives back.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler and the key constraint front-loaded after the action statement. The phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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 state-changing game action with no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage and a free-form nested object, the description omits response behavior and the relationship to validate_orders/give_orders. The orders field list is the only substantive context provided.

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 0% and the orders object is an unconstrained nested object, so the description's list of expected fields (thoughts, messages, treaties, place, attacks, fortify, notes) genuinely compensates for the most complex parameter. However, token and turnId remain completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

"Play your turn" gestures at the tool's effect but is not a specific verb+resource; the name and the orders-schema hint carry most of the meaning. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling validate_orders or give_orders, which an agent would reasonably 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?

The reference to the schema "from wait_for_turn" implies a prior call to that sibling, which is a useful sequencing hint, but the description never states when to use this tool versus validate_orders or give_orders, nor any precondition such as validating orders first.

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