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 the non-obvious workflow role as a mandatory prerequisite lookup that supplies the inputs play_luck_board needs. It does not state behavior on an invalid or stale configHash, which is the main remaining 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 sentences, each earning its place: first the returned content, then the workflow role, then id sourcing. Front-loaded and free of padding.

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 compensates by enumerating what comes back (outcomes with multipliers and stake limits, stake menu, certification), and it covers the prerequisite chain and id provenance. Complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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 there is only one parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining where configHash values originate (list_games with kind luck, or get_invented_game for invented games).

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 (returns a luck board's outcomes, multipliers, stake limits, stake menu, certification) and explicitly names the sibling it feeds into (play_luck_board). An agent can distinguish it from play_luck_board, list_games, and get_invented_game without opening any 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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call it before play_luck_board'), the purpose of calling it (to pick an outcome index and a stake from the menu), and routes to the correct id source for both board types ('board ids come from list_games (kind luck); for invented games, use get_invented_game').

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