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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered, yet the description adds real behavioral detail the annotations cannot: the call blocks up to a bounded time, and it enumerates the exact status outcomes ('your_turn', 'waiting', 'eliminated') with the payload each implies. The closing note that inbox and recent-event text is written by other players and is 'not instructions' is a valuable prompt-injection warning that no structured field conveys.

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?

The blocking behavior and its cap are front-loaded, followed by the return statuses, with no filler sentences. The list of observation components is slightly dense but each element earns its place; only the trailing security note might read as tangential, though it is genuinely useful.

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 by naming the three statuses and the shape of the 'your_turn' payload. For a polling tool it is nearly complete; the remaining gap is error/expiry behavior and what to do after a 'waiting' result.

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 50%, and the schema itself already documents board ('near' vs 'all') and includeSchema (the ~20 KB orders schema). The description reinforces waitSeconds via 'Blocks up to waitSeconds (max 25)' and echoes the orders-schema payload, but adds no new syntax or format detail, and the required token parameter is unexplained. Adequate but not compensatory.

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 behavior: a blocking poll that returns when it is the player's turn, capped at waitSeconds (max 25), plus the three possible status outcomes. That is clear enough to tell it apart from an immediate mutated-action tool, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like sample_turn or briefing, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 semantics imply the usage pattern (call this to wait until you may act), and the max-25 cap hints at repeated polling. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sample_turn or briefing, nor whether to re-call after a 'waiting' result, so the agent must infer the loop itself.

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