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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the output is an unsigned transaction, that an Override Disk must be in the wallet, that an approval step precedes the bet, and that dice come from a public drand draw. It omits error behavior (e.g., betting after round close) and what to do with the prepared payload next.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose front-loaded before prerequisites. The parenthetical '(an approve, then the bet)' is slightly awkward but carries real information, so waste is minimal.

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 3-param prepare tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers purpose, the Override Disk prerequisite, the approve-then-bet sequence, and RNG fairness. A brief note on what the unsigned result is and how to submit it would make it fully complete.

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%, with wallet, side, and amountZeni already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the side mapping and ZENI denomination but adds no new syntax or constraint detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'prepare (unsigned) a bet on the current round' — scoped to High Tables / Cho-Han, and enumerates the side mapping. An agent can distinguish it from prepare_cho_han_claim, prepare_cho_han_settle, and generic prepare_bet without opening a schema.

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 game context ('High Tables, Cho-Han') and the 'approve, then the bet' prerequisite imply when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. With a sibling prepare_bet present, the agent gets no direct routing rule between the two.

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