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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add behavior beyond that. It does: it explains why the answer is unavailable (no preflop dataset publishes exploitability, convergence, or iteration counts) and guarantees the tool will never fabricate a number. The only gap is not stating whether the response is an empty result or an explicit "not available" payload.

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 and immediately followed by the critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the essential oddity of the tool thoroughly. It is only incomplete in not pointing the agent toward an alternative path for computing exploitability.

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% and there is a single parameter, whose description already explains that any known game yields "not available". The description adds nothing further about the game id format or valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 names the resource (preflop exploitability for a given game) and, unusually, its defining behavior: it reports that no dataset publishes this metric rather than a value. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like get_hand_results or compare_strategies. It is slightly weakened by being a noun phrase rather than stating a retrieval action, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implicitly tells the agent not to call this expecting a number ("The answer is not available; this tool never fills in a number"), which is meaningful usage guidance for a dead-end lookup. However, it names no alternative for actually obtaining exploitability (e.g., enqueue_solve), and gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use framing. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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