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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: certification runs thousands of simulated rounds, publication typically takes under a minute, the call blocks up to 45 s, and passing maxPlayers also opens multiplayer rooms. The async/timeout and side-effect disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.

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-loads the action and outcome, then packs stake/multiplayer constraints and the timeout fallback into two tight sentences with 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers timing, blocking behavior, side effects (multiplayer rooms), parameter constraints, and the recovery path via game_status. It does not say what the call returns on success, but the async handling makes it largely self-sufficient.

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, but the description adds constraints the schema lacks: stakeOptions allows up to 6 amounts in increasing order, each 0 or 100..5000. maxPlayers and replaces are already documented in the schema, so only stakeOptions genuinely benefits.

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 ('publishes a board config') and adds what publishing means (certification, going live). It implicitly contrasts with design_luck_board via the config source, but never names the sibling publish tools (publish_invented_game, publish_skill_game) so an agent must infer which publish variant applies.

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 clear context (certify then live, usually within a minute) and an explicit fallback: if still certifying after ~45 s, check with game_status. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer this over the other publish_* tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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