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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly conveys that the tool returns decoded terms (not just raw data), and that expired promos are excluded. However, it does not disclose whether the tool makes any external API calls, its freshness/update frequency, or any latency implications. The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with zero 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?

The description is relatively concise (2-3 sentences plus examples) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first defines what is returned, the second lists use cases, the third gives example JSON. No redundant fluff. However, the example call section could be slightly more structured, and the parenthetical warning about headline vs decoded terms, while useful, adds a bit of clutter.

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?

Given the tool has zero annotations, 2 parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the input semantics and use cases reasonably. However, it does not explain the output structure or data freshness (are bonuses cached/updated daily?). For a tool that decodes 'fine print', not detailing the response format or update cadence is a notable gap, especially with sibling tools like 'check_casino' that may have overlapping context.

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 50% (the 'casino' parameter has description while 'limit' does not in the schema). The description adds value by showing example values for both parameters ('limit': 5, 'casino': 'BetUS'), and explains the 'casino' parameter's purpose ('only bonuses from this casino'). For 'limit', it repeats the default behavior implied by the schema default of 10. This meets the baseline for 50% coverage but does not exceed it significantly.

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: 'Current best crypto casino bonuses' with the 'fine print decoded' from T&Cs. It explicitly distinguishes what the tool provides (wagering requirement, max bonus, max cashout, real-value score) and what it excludes (expired promos, marketing headline). This clearly differentiates from siblings like 'top_casinos' or 'new_casinos' which focus on casinos themselves, not bonuses.

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 description provides example call json snippets ('limit': 5 or 'casino': 'BetUS') which implies typical usage. It also lists example user queries ('best crypto casino bonus', 'deposit match with low wagering', 'is the X welcome bonus worth it?'), clearly defining when to invoke. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name a specific sibling alternative for when to use those instead.

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