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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavior by saying the operation is unsigned preparation, requires no Disk, and returns the stake. However, it does not disclose prerequisites such as seating status, failure behavior if the table has filled, or what exactly the prepared unsigned result contains.

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 compact and front-loaded: it identifies the game context, the action, the table condition, and the stake outcome in one efficient statement. There is no wasted text.

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 prepare tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is prepared, when it applies, and the stake-return effect. It could still be stronger by explaining the unsigned output or prerequisite seating state.

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%, so both wallet and table are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the table-state condition, not additional parameter syntax or meaning 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?

The description gives a specific action: preparing an unsigned leave from a Red Dragon table that has not filled, with the stake returned. This clearly distinguishes the action from joining or flipping, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as prepare_red_dragon_refund.

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 states the triggering condition clearly: use when leaving a table that has not filled yet and the stake should come back. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives for cases where the table has filled.

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