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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful beyond-schema context: the operation is 'Free' and it clarifies the puzzle path needs a session_id, which the agent can act on.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's nature before drills into view modes and the puzzle caveat. No filler or redundant sentences.

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 rich annotations and a 100% documented schema, the definition covers the essentials. It would be stronger if it clarified the return shape for each view or the match_id requirement for non-puzzle reads, but no output schema exists and the main call-correctness facts are present.

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 100%, so each parameter (game enum, view enum, agent_id, match_id, session_id) is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the view semantics and the session_id requirement but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (read/inspect) and resource (game), and enumerates the concrete view modes it supports. The closing line 'never starts or mutates a game' explicitly separates it from the mutating siblings play_game and manage_game.

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?

Maps each view to its purpose (status/state reads a match, queue checks matchmaking, replay returns history) and flags the puzzle-session requirement, giving clear usage context. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives to route to for writes, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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