Social Casino Index

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing return content (a block/no-block determination plus a legal basis 'where one exists') and by framing the result as site policy rather than legal advice.

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 sentences, no repetition of the title, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the scope-limiting caveat. Nothing wastes space.

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 return values, and it does so adequately (block status plus optional legal basis). Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say what the legal-basis field looks like when none exists, nor whether results are cached or how quickly policy changes propagate.

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 with 100% schema description coverage; the schema itself documents accepted formats ('TX' or 'California'). The description adds no additional semantics about the state input, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (return whether...blocks) plus a well-defined resource (sweepstakes casino offer policy per US state), scoped to the Social Casino Index site. It is clearly distinct in kind from the sibling casino-listing tools, though it never names them to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when gating offers by state. The 'site offer policy, not legal advice' line clarifies how to interpret the answer but gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the description's job is narrower. It adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the response (toplist position, bonuses, payout time, redemption minimums, sources), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not say what happens when a casino is not in the index.

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 sentence with zero wasted words; the resource and the returned-field list are front-loaded, and the examples are embedded compactly without a separate clause.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, 100% parameter description coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the resource and the returned fields adequately. The only real gap is not-found behavior and any source-recency caveat.

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%, and the schema itself supplies the format hint (name or slug, with "WOW Vegas"/"wow-vegas" example). The description's example names (McLuck, Chumba, WOW Vegas) add marginal flavor but no new syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Return") and resource ("the Social Casino Index entry for one social or sweepstakes casino"), plus enumerates the returned fields. The word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_top_social_casinos, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 "for one... casino" — a single-entity lookup — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and neither sibling (get_top_social_casinos, check_state_availability) is named as an alternative for related tasks.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by detailing the returned fields (signup bonus, first-purchase offer, daily reward, payout time, redemption minimums, dated source links) and the homepage ordering, which annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and ordering, the second enumerates the returned fields. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and the limit parameter documented in-schema, the description supplies the missing return-value detail even though no output schema exists. Only the sibling differentiation (list vs. single casino) is absent.

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% and the single limit parameter already documents its purpose and default. The description mentions no parameters, so the schema carries the load; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the Social Casino Index toplist of US social and sweepstakes casinos, with the ordering rule made explicit. It reads as distinct from get_social_casino (singular), but the description never names or contrasts with that sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools. The reader can infer this is the list endpoint versus the single-casino endpoint, but that inference is left entirely to them.

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