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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the one-attempt ranked nature of the daily challenge, the shared-city rule, the random-city practice mode, and the returned data (board, game id, current step). It omits some edge-case behavior, such as what happens if the daily challenge was already completed, but overall is substantially transparent.

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 English description is front-loaded and efficient, with the primary mode and return values stated first. The full Spanish translation doubles the length, which is useful for bilingual users but does not add new information for an English-only selector.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers modes, attempt rules, return values, and resume behavior. Minor gaps remain around daily eligibility/timezone and failure cases, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the enum values for tipo are already documented in the schema. The description maps naturally to those modes but adds no additional syntax, format, or token semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (start/resume) and resource (today's daily challenge or practice run), and clearly distinguishes the two modes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as corruptopolis_accion or corruptopolis_entrar, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: starting/resuming the ranked daily challenge with one attempt, or starting a random-city practice run. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.

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