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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden well. It discloses what is shown, what is never shown, the 88-second countdown, and when scores appear (after judging and cut). It also positions itself as a polling mechanism. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any side effects, though this is strongly implied.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides specific behavioral details and usage timing in a well-structured flow. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does a solid job of explaining what is returned (round type, prompt, countdown, alive/total, own status, prior submissions) and when to poll. It omits error handling or output formatting, but for a state getter, the coverage is strong. A minor gap is not explaining set_presence_ack, though that is covered in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description redundantly mentions lobby_id as the identifier but does not add meaningful semantic value for parameters like set_presence_ack or game_id beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions are thorough, so no penalty is needed.

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 clearly states the tool provides a live view of an OMEGA lobby, listing specific data (round type, prompt, countdown, alive/total, own status, prior submissions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it never shows other players' entries or mid-round scores, and positions itself as the polling tool between rounds.

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 says to 'Poll this between rounds to know when the next prompt is live,' giving clear timing guidance. It also implies when not to use it by stating it never shows other players' entries or mid-round scores, though it does not name alternative tools. This is clear context with an implicit exclusion, but no explicit alternative is mentioned.

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