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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the transaction is unsigned, it 'costs nothing but gas', and fill 'replaces your earlier seat with the same role'. It does not cover approval/allowance requirements beyond the wallet param note, nor ordering constraints between enroll and fill, nor what the returned payload requires 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 that front-loads the resource and the three action glosses with no filler. The nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan, but every clause carries information.

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 7-parameter, multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what each action does and its cost/unsigned nature. The remaining gap is the multi-step flow (prepare → sign/submit) and cross-action prerequisites, which the description leaves implicit.

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 every parameter is already documented ('For fill and clear: the game contract address', etc.). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond a restatement of the action names and the seat-replacement rule, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (roster) and enumerates the three operations it performs — enroll, fill, clear — with a one-clause gloss on each. It also distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling get_roster by explaining that enroll is what makes a character appear there.

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?

Each action is given a clear purpose ('list one of your characters so get_roster shows it', 'put an enrolled character in a seat of your next squad'), which tells an agent which action to pick for a given goal. It never states exclusions or prerequisites explicitly (e.g., that fill requires prior enrollment), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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