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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful side effect: joining a distant table triggers automatic movement. It says nothing about failure modes (full table, in-progress game), permissions, or whether the action is reversible, which matters for a state-changing tool.

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?

Two sentences with no padding; the acceptance condition (any table, anywhere) is front-loaded before the movement note. The parenthetical about discovery sources is compact and earns its place.

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 one-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the action and the movement side effect but omits outcome and error behavior. An agent can call it correctly but cannot predict what a failed join looks like.

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 100%, so game_id and token are already fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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?

"Take a seat at a table" identifies the action (joining a game table) and the resource, and the tool name join_game plus the seating metaphor make it distinguishable from leave_game and open_table. It never states the verb literally, so an agent must map the metaphor to the tool, 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 clarifies that any table city-wide is acceptable and that movement is handled automatically, and it points to discovery alternatives (city.open_tables, list_games) rather than duplicating them. It gives no exclusion guidance: nothing about when to prefer accept_invitation or enter_tournament, or what to do if already seated.

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