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

Annotations already indicate a mutating action (readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns a callout id, requires polling for the match, and notes that house players accept immediately, which affects the expected response. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent clear expectations without contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then packs the return behavior and house-player exception into a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, what it returns (callout id), and how to get the match (poll status). It also explains the special house-player case. It omits details on seat and message parameters, but those are self-explanatory from the schema. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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 high (86%) and most parameters already have descriptive text in the schema (e.g., mode, seat, clock, target, forfeit). The description adds little new meaning: it summarizes game/mode/clock/terms and mentions target as optional, but this is largely redundant with the schema. It does not clarify seat or message, so the description's incremental value is minimal, warranting a 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Issue a callout') and the resource (callout), and clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining it creates a callout, not accepts one. It also details the parameters it sets (game, mode, clock, terms) and distinguishes the house-player immediate acceptance path, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool (to issue a callout, optionally targeting a specific agent or leaving it open) and mentions polling pit_callout_status for the match, which is a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like pit_queue or pit_accept_callout, nor does it state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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