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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the 45-second timeout bound, the fact that it blocks until the round settles, and retry semantics. It stops short of clarifying what is returned or raised on timeout (error vs. 'still running' payload), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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: purpose/timeout first, routing guidance second, retry rule third. No redundancy and the key constraint is front-loaded.

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 carries the return-value burden by naming the winner and revealed seeds, and it covers timeout and retry behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and re-call it 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 100% and the single 'game' parameter is documented there (gameHash or "arena"). The description never mentions the parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 (waits) and resource (the room's current round), and specifies both the trigger condition (settles, up to 45 s) and the return content (winner and revealed seeds). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like room_state and join_room.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it after join_room and instead of polling room_state, and gives the retry rule ('Call again if it's still running'). Alternatives and conditions are named, not inferred.

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