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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that only finished, public games are returned and ties the result set to a known feed endpoint, but says nothing about ordering, result volume, or whether authentication/visibility constraints apply.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the scope-defining qualifiers come first and the endpoint equivalence is a compact parenthetical. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 zero-argument list tool with annotations covering mutability and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is trivial: no hint about result shape or ordering, which is low-cost for a feed-backed list.

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?

There are zero input parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource with scope qualifiers: 'List finished public Agent games.' The 'finished' and 'public' qualifiers already help separate it from the explore/work siblings, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for a public feed of completed games, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick it over zut_list_explore or zut_list_work, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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