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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the output is unsigned (a transaction to be signed elsewhere) and the claim can be a refund path for voided rounds. It does not say whether claiming is idempotent, what happens on a double claim, or whether gas/allowance requirements apply — notable for a value-transfer tool.

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 no filler, front-loaded with the domain ('High Tables, Cho-Han'). The nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be, but nothing is wasted.

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 prepare-transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is prepared and why, but omits the lifecycle: that the result must be signed and broadcast, and whether a companion tool finalizes it. Against ~100 sibling tools this omission is a real gap, though not a fatal one.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the explicit note that the wallet is only read for balance/allowance and simulation. The description adds only the constraint that 'round' refers to a settled round. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names the specific game (Cho-Han), the specific action (prepare an unsigned claim of winnings, or refund for a voided round), and the scope (one settled round). That distinguishes it well from prepare_cho_han_bet and prepare_cho_han_settle without opening their schemas. The verb is buried in a parenthetical ('prepare (unsigned) collecting your winnings'), which keeps it from 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?

'For one settled round' implies the prerequisite that the round must already be settled, and 'or your refund when a round was voided' covers the branch condition. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus the closely named prepare_cho_han_settle sibling, and no statement of what to do after the unsigned payload is produced.

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