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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the blocking semantics, the 25-second cap, and the three possible terminal statuses including the notable 'eliminated' case. It omits anything about the token/auth requirement or polling frequency, but the core behavioral profile is disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence with the blocking behavior front-loaded and the return statuses following; every clause carries information. Slightly packed but no wasted text.

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 and no annotations, the description correctly fills the gap by enumerating return statuses and the contents of the observation payload. Only the token parameter's role is left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains waitSeconds semantically (a blocking timeout, matching the schema's max of 25), but the required 'token' parameter is never explained in either the schema or the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Blocks ... until it is your turn') and enumerates the outcomes ('your_turn', 'waiting', 'eliminated'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like sample_turn or submit_orders.

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 blocking/polling context is implied by 'Blocks up to waitSeconds ... until it is your turn', but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus sample_turn, briefing, or submit_orders, and no stated preconditions.

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