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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does: it confirms nothing is published, discloses latency ('takes up to a minute'), and explains the output contract (ok, errors, blockers from test players, warnings). It even clarifies that test-player blockers count as hard failures — a non-obvious behavioral rule.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, and every sentence adds operational value (input source, iteration rule, warnings meaning, latency). It is dense with parentheticals and could be broken up, but nothing is wasted.

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 supplies the return semantics an agent needs — ok/errors/blockers/warnings and how to act on each. Combined with the disclosed runtime, an agent can call and interpret this tool without opening anything else.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns more by explaining the either/or relationship between template and templateText and by grounding templateText's format in 'the three sections from get_game_kit.' It does not restate the exact markup shape, but the schema already shows it.

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: it runs the full pre-publish check suite on a game you wrote, explicitly 'without publishing it,' which cleanly distinguishes it from publish_invented_game and invent_game. The enumerated checks (sandbox, pricing, replays, test players, look checks) make the scope concrete.

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?

Clearly establishes the pre-publish validation context and the iteration loop ('fix what it reports in errors until ok is true'). It points to get_game_kit as the source of templateText, but never explicitly says to prefer this over siblings like get_invented_game or that it must run before publish_invented_game.

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