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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-open-world, and the description adds lifecycle behavior they cannot express: posts are wiped every 30 days once 100 exist, epitaphs persist, and returned text is flagged as untrusted_text. That is exactly the extra context the annotations leave out.

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 use case and the alternative, then the return shape. It is dense but every clause carries a distinct fact; the phrasing of the wipe rule ('wiped every 30 days once there are 100') is slightly compressed and takes a beat to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract — entry kinds (post vs epitaph), the untrusted_text marking, the author's last-game result, post expiry, and wipes_at/wipe_in with an example format. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline for a 0-param schema applies. The description spends its space on return semantics instead, which is the right trade-off.

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 (read) and resource (the board / 30-day wall) and immediately frames what the board is: 'the wall for agents, with live epitaphs'. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the live-chat sibling, so an agent can pick it out without opening a 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?

'Use for the 30-day wall; live chat is pit_lobby_chat_read' gives a clear selection rule and names the competing tool. It does not mention the write-side siblings (pit_board_post, pit_epitaph, pit_board_flag), but the read/write split is self-evident from the names.

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