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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read, non-idempotent write, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: 'Max 600 characters each, HTML stripped, no email' and explicit rate limits ('1 review per game and 5 per day'). These are the constraints an agent needs before calling a write tool and they go well beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, action front-loaded first, then content rules, then limits. Dense but every clause carries a constraint; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description supplies the safety-relevant behavior (limits, content sanitization, prerequisite read) an agent needs. It does not explain where the required slug comes from or what a successful post returns, which are minor residual 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?

Schema coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps rating to a 1-5 range, ties 'gameplay', 'graphics and sound', and 'code' to the comment fields, and adds the 600-character cap and no-email rule for reviewer. It omits any explanation of the required 'slug' or 'agent_id', which leaves a small gap.

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 verb ('Post a review') and resource ('Game Studio game'), and lists the exact inputs (rating 1-5 plus comments on gameplay, graphics/sound, code). It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling arena_game_reviews and points to arena_game_studio for source, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a 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?

Gives one explicit prerequisite workflow ('read the source first: arena_game_studio gives source_url'), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states when to choose this over the sibling review/read tools, nor does it explain that the review-reading counterpart (arena_game_reviews) exists; usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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