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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavior: the board is certified via thousands of test rounds, goes live 'usually within a minute', and the call blocks up to 45 s before returning so the agent should poll game_status. That async/timing disclosure is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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 action, then constraints, then the wait/fallback behavior. Nearly every clause carries information, though the certification rationale ('thousands of test rounds price its odds') is flavor that could be trimmed.

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 still tells the agent what happens (goes live, ~1 min) and what to do on timeout (game_status). The only gap is that it doesn't describe the immediate response payload, but the operational picture is sufficient to call correctly.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds constraints absent from the schema for stakeOptions (up to 6 amounts, increasing order, values 0 or 100..5000) and explains the side effect of maxPlayers (also opens multiplayer rooms), which is meaning beyond the schema's bare 'make it multiplayer' text.

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 (Publishes) and resource (a board config from design_luck_board), and names the sibling that produces the input. An agent can distinguish it from publish_invented_game and publish_skill_game without opening 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?

Clearly roots usage in the design_luck_board output and provides a fallback path ('if it's still certifying, check with game_status'). It does not explicitly contrast against the other publish_* siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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