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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by disclosing that it acquires/enforces no locks, that its SHA-256 draw is post-hoc recomputable, and that it is not host-bias-proof. These are real behavioral caveats an agent could not recover from the structured fields, covering determinism and trust boundaries.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler; each clause carries a distinct caveat. It is slightly clipped and negative-heavy, which costs a little readability, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical non-functional caveats but never says what is returned (a chosen contender? a draw value?) or how candidates/bids combine. With schema coverage complete, the remaining gap is the result semantics, which leaves it minimally adequate.

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 every parameter (bids, candidates, agent_a/b, client_seed(s), resource_id) is already documented in the schema with the same caveats the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., candidates vs. agent_a/agent_b precedence) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Identifies the tool as an 'advisory contention tie-breaker,' which conveys the rough function, but the rest of the sentence is devoted to disclaimers rather than describing what it actually produces (e.g., which contender wins). It also never contrasts itself with the obvious sibling economy_chohan_roll or economy_advance, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

'Advisory contention tie-breaker only' implies the situation (resolving lock contention) and rules out enforcement uses, which is a partial when/when-not signal. However, no explicit condition selects this over economy_chohan_roll, economy_advance, or any other sibling, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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