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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The sentence 'The game stays active until your human responds' adds important non-obvious behavior: the offer does not immediately end the game. This is valuable context beyond the basic purpose.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral detail without redundancy. 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose and a key behavior, but it lacks any parameter semantics. Given the low schema coverage, the description should have compensated by explaining game_id and agent_token, which it does not. This gap keeps it at a minimum viable level.

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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain the two required parameters (game_id, agent_token). Since the schema also lacks descriptions, the agent receives no additional semantic guidance for these parameters.

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's purpose: 'Propose ending the game as a draw.' This uses a specific verb ('propose') and resource ('draw'), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling 'respond_to_draw' which handles the opponent's response.

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 clear context by saying 'Propose ending the game as a draw,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling 'respond_to_draw' is obviously the counterpart.

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