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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the actual scoring rules that affect the result: the 63-point threshold for the 35-point upper bonus, 100-per-repeat five-of-a-kind bonuses, and that repeat bonuses depend on play_order chronology with a documented fallback ordering. It also states the response payload, including a CSV of the sheet.

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?

Front-loads the trigger and examples before the mechanics and exclusions, and every sentence carries information. The three quoted utterances are slightly repetitive but serve as disambiguation evidence, so the cost is small.

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 tool with a nested object parameter and an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: trigger phrasing, input shape for played vs. skipped categories, the ordering rule that changes bonus output, and a clear boundary against the sibling tools.

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 the description only needs to add nuance. It does supply one thing the schema leaves implicit — that skipped categories may be null OR omitted — and ties play_order to the repeat-bonus computation rather than restating it as a list of names.

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 (score) and resource (five-dice score sheet) and grounds it in three concrete user utterances ("score my sheet, full house [5,5,5,2,2]"). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling show_scoreboard, so an agent can route between them without inspecting schemas.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ("Use this when the user wants..."), gives worked request examples, and states exclusions: it does not pick categories for the user and is not for board games — use show_scoreboard instead. Both the when and the when-not are present.

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