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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it states that the tool checks whether SHA-256(server seed) matches the published hash and returns random floats in [0,1). It does not describe what happens when the hash does not match, which keeps it below a 5.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then adds the verification and derivation details. Every clause earns its place by explaining what is checked and what is returned.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return values (floats in [0,1)) and the verification behavior. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about failure behavior or what 'cursor' refers to.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description still adds value by explaining that the HMAC input is built from 'cliente:nonce:cursor' and that the tool returns random numbers, which clarifies how 'semilla_cliente', 'nonce', and the returned floats relate to one another. Minor gap: it mentions a 'cursor' that is not a named parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Verifica una jugada provably fair') and explains the underlying mechanism (SHA-256 server-seed check plus HMAC-derived random floats). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools 'juegos' and 'prode', but the purpose is otherwise unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is for verifying a completed 'provably fair' play after the server seed has been revealed. The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention any alternative tool or preconditions.

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