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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is deterministic or volatile, what the return value format is, or any side effects. The word 'Randomise' implies a random operation, but the description lacks basic behavioral details such as 'returns a new list'.

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?

One short sentence, no fluff, front-loaded verb and resource. Every word 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?

The tool is simple with only one input parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not explicitly state the return value (e.g., the list of players in random order). While inferable, this gap prevents a higher score.

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% (the only parameter 'players' is described as 'Player names'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, but the parameter is straightforward enough that the schema suffices. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Randomise') and resource ('turn order') with a clear scope ('for a list of players'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like team_split or dice_roll by clearly stating its function.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose implies the use case: randomize the order of players in a game. Since there are no competing sibling tools for this exact function, the usage is implied rather than clearly stated.

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