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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the polling cadence and the fact that a rejected status carries reasons. It doesn't say whether polling is bounded or when to stop retrying, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then the trigger condition with cadence, then sibling routing. 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?

With no output schema, the description does the return-value work itself by enumerating the possible statuses and noting rejected includes reasons. Combined with the polling guidance and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 configHash is documented as 'Board id'. The description implies a board identifier via 'a published board' but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it reports whether a published board is 'certifying, live or rejected (with reasons)'. The status vocabulary makes the tool's output semantics clear and distinguishes it from get_luck_board or publish_luck_board without needing the schema.

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 states exactly when to call it ('when publish_luck_board returns before certification ends') and how often ('every 10 s or so'). It also names two alternatives with their selection conditions: invent_status for invented games and my_games for live games.

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