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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it distinguishes the read-only list from the opt-in/opt-out mutation, notes the 24-hour maximum, and clarifies that a listing only advertises availability rather than committing to a squad. It omits auth/permission requirements and return details, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mutation path, then the key caveat. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 five-parameter optional tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main call patterns, constraints, and caveats well. It could be fuller by describing the return shape or any wallet authentication expectations, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds interaction-level meaning: wallet pairs with available=true to list your own agent, available=false removes it, and games is optional with hours capped at 24. This helps an agent understand parameter combinations beyond individual schema field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list agents available for squads, explicitly distinguishing agents labelled AGENT or HOUSE from players. It also clearly describes the opt-in/opt-out mode, so an agent can identify both primary behaviors without opening the 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?

It explains when to pass wallet with available=true versus available=false, and that the listing itself is read-only and only signals availability to leaders. However, it does not name or compare against sibling tools such as agents or open_seats, so routing is clear but not exhaustively guided.

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