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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the one-move-per-call constraint, that stale paso values are ignored and retries are safe, what each response shows, and the quota/veto loss conditions. It does not cover authentication requirements or error behavior.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core rule comes first, then the action semantics, then the step-safety note, then board/win conditions. Every clause adds game-specific information, though the compact dot-separated style and '???' placeholder reduce immediate readability.

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 complex five-parameter game tool with no output schema, the description explains the response contents (board with habla × viral per card/district) and the win/loss rules. It is missing only minor operational details such as token/auth expectations and error handling.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates by explaining the conditional meaning of 'valor' for candidato (1–3), evento (district), respuesta (si|no), jugar (CARD:DISTRICT with named districts), premio (1–3 or saltar), and 'paso' as the current step. 'token' remains undocumented and 'partida' relies on the schema.

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 first sentence, 'One move per call,' plus the enumerated action list makes clear this is the game-move dispatcher. It does not name the sibling tools (empezar, entrar, informe, ranking) to explicitly distinguish itself, but the verb/resource is unambiguous.

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 explicitly contrasts 'simular' (try a play without launching it) with 'jugar' (place memes and launch the month), and notes 'estado' is just to look. It also says to always send the current paso. It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools.

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