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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses important traits: the long-poll wait up to wait_seconds, the 50-second cap, the turn-dependent condition, and the retry instruction. It also describes the return contents in detail, though it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss edge/error behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded and compact: it first says what the return contains, then gives the wait and retry behavior. The list of table components is long but purposeful because no output schema exists.

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 single-optional-parameter state-reading tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned contents and the wait/retry behavior. It is somewhat jargon-heavy and does not explicitly reassure that the call is non-mutating, but it gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents wait_seconds with its default and maximum. The description adds the turn-condition context for why the wait applies, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states that it returns the current table state 'in words' and enumerates the components included, including every legal action as a numbered line. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as result or brief, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives useful polling guidance: wait up to wait_seconds for the agent's action when it is the opponent's turn, and call table_state again if it is still theirs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings like act, find_table, or result.

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