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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the game ends and the human wins immediately, implying irreversibility, and the phrase 'your own real decision' signals intentionality. It does not detail authorization or response behavior, but those are less critical for this simple action.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The additional warning 'your own real decision, not something to do lightly' adds a useful cautionary tone but is not essential technical information, so it loses one point for slight redundancy.

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 resign action with two obvious parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: it ends the game and gives the human an immediate win. It could mention the response format or error cases, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), and the description does not explain the roles of game_id or agent_token. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to infer their meanings.

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 action ('End the game by resigning') with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like make_move or offer_draw by emphasizing finality and immediate human victory. The consequence is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 strong context: it is a decisive, final action ('not something to do lightly') and explains that the human wins immediately. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as offer_draw or state when not to use it, preventing a perfect score.

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