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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully adds 'Pure computation: nothing is stored,' confirming no side effects or persistence. It also discloses which scheme requires the nonce, mildly going beyond the structured data, but says nothing about what a failed/mismatched verification looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence opens with the purpose and then qualifies the two modes efficiently; nothing is wasted. It is dense, packing scheme names and parameters into one long clause list, but still readable.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both computation modes and the non-storage behavior but never describes the return value (validity verdict, recomputed numbers, comparison result against the supplied 'numbers'). For a verification tool the outcome shape matters, and that gap is left unaddressed.

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% and every parameter already carries its own description (defaults, 'swoge-casino-shoe only: the hand number', the quote flag). The description's mention of the scheme/nonce pairing largely restates what the schema already encodes, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('check a draw independently: recomputes the SHA-256...') and even enumerates the two supported schemes and what gets recomputed for each. It is clearly a verification tool rather than a draw/commit tool, but it never names the obvious siblings fair_draw or fair_commit, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 this to check a draw independently' gives clear context for invocation and scopes it to two named schemes. It stops short of saying when not to use it or pointing to the alternative tools for generating or committing a draw.

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