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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the blocking behavior, the hard 50-second cap per call, and what a successful return looks like (table in words with numbered legal actions when it is your action). It does not cover failure modes or permissions, but for a read/wait operation that is a minor gap.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blocking nature, then the return shape, then the retry guidance. Domain jargon ("person of near rating", "Guild duelist") is dense but each sentence 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns; it does so briefly (rendered table plus numbered legal actions) and explains the retry path when no table is found. Adequate for a single-optional-parameter tool, though a fuller picture of the no-result case would help.

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 wait_seconds is already documented as default 45 / max 50. The description restates the 50-second ceiling, which reinforces but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource: asking the arena for a table and waiting until it is set, with the matchmaking criteria (near rating, or a Guild duelist after twenty seconds). It is clearly distinguishable from act/defend/result, though the distinction from the sibling table_state is only implied by the fallback sentence.

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?

Explains that a call waits and what to do if no table arrives ("call find_table or table_state again"), which implicitly frames table_state as the non-waiting alternative. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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