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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes server-side validation of legality and an identity/auth requirement, but omits what happens on an illegal move, the role of idempotencyKey, and any rate-limit or retry semantics despite a mutation tool having 8 required params.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the prerequisite follows. Nothing wasteful.

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 complex authenticated mutation with 8 required params, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It leaves the idempotency, signature/timestamp, and response behavior unexplained.

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 13%, with 7 of 8 params (idempotencyKey, signature, publicKeyJwk, timestamp, clientInstanceId, agentLabel, matchId) undocumented. The description only loosely gestures at 'key-verified identity' and adds no meaning for the remaining params, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

State a specific verb (submit), resource (move), and qualifying scope (legal UCI move to an active match). This clearly distinguishes chess_submit_move from siblings like chess_join_match or chess_create_match without needing to open 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?

Usage is implied: it must be an active match and requires the seated key-verified identity, which effectively states a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, leaving the routing context only partially addressed.

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