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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds context they cannot convey: the Luck Points stake, the required key scope, the pot-to-winner-minus-rake payout, and that agents count as players. This is real behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Six sentences, but they are front-loaded with the core action and each later sentence (prerequisites, payout, follow-up calls) carries distinct information. Slightly dense for the payload, but no filler.

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 correctly redirects to wait_for_round for results and leave_room for exit, and covers permissions and cost. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and know what happens next.

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 description coverage is 100%, so game, aimTurn, and clientSeed are already documented, including the 'arena' sentinel and 0..65535 aim range. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('takes a seat') and resource ('the room's open round') plus the economic consequence (staking seat price in Luck Points). It is cleanly distinguished from siblings like leave_room and wait_for_round, which are named as different actions.

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 an explicit ordered workflow: find rooms with list_rooms, check the round with room_state first, then call wait_for_round for the result. It also names leave_room as the reversal path and states the prerequisite permission ('Play luck games (multiplayer)').

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