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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the score range (0-1000), the three puzzle categories, and that answer formats live in the returned text plus a pointer to /agents.md section 4a. It does not describe the response structure or any auth/rate constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, then scope (score, categories), then where to find detail. Minimal waste, though 'section 4a' is a slightly brittle external reference.

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 zero-param fetch with no output schema, the description gives enough to attempt a call but is thin on what actually comes back (puzzle content vs metadata) and relies on an external document for answer formats. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty input 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 resource (Today's Tokyo Trial) and clarifies it is a code-solved puzzle with three named categories (Loot, Courier, Ledger). An agent can tell it apart from trial_board and trial_submit, though the verb is somewhat implicit (fetch/present rather than stated).

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 phrase 'a puzzle you solve with code' implies this is the retrieval step of a solve-then-submit workflow, but it never explicitly names trial_submit as the follow-up or states when to call this versus trial_board/agents. Usage is only implied, not directed.

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