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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by disclosing the algorithm (CFR+ self-play), the evaluation method (pure best responses), the reference value (-1/18), and a scope disclaimer. It omits cost/runtime expectations for a iterative solver, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and finishing with interpretation guidance and disclaimer. Every clause carries information; no padding.

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 parameterless-to-one-param read-only compute tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose and an interpretive benchmark, which is most of what an agent needs. It still leaves the sole parameter undefined and gives no sense of output structure or runtime, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

One parameter ('iterations') with 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description never mentions it. The description does not explain that iterations controls CFR+ training depth or the accuracy/runtime trade-off, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Solve Kuhn poker with CFR+ self-play') plus supplementary behaviors (exploitability measurement, comparison against -1/18). No sibling tool touches poker or game theory, so differentiation is unambiguous from the description alone.

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 by the description of the computation, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no condition that selects this tool over any alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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