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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, and the description adds real substance on top: login/organizer authorization requirement, the preview-vs-confirm gate, requestId retry semantics that prevent accidental re-draws, and the irreversible nature of complete (seed published, cannot reopen). Disclosure of the previewHash/consent safety gate is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the action enumeration, then the workflow constraints, with essentially no filler despite being dense. The packed clause-per-comma style is efficient but makes the gating rules harder to parse at a glance.

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 12-parameter destructive state machine with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle, the preview/confirm flow, and the key preconditions. It omits the meaning of decision/reason, what lock does to existing tickets, and any return-value expectations, leaving minor but real gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 12 parameters the description must carry the load, and it mostly does: prizeId belongs to draw, drawId to review, claimCode to claim, evidenceReviewedByUser to review, and the consent/preview/previewHash triple to confirmation. It leaves decision (approve/reject) and reason unexplained, so the coverage is good but not complete.

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 concrete verb set and resource: the six raffle lifecycle actions (open/lock/draw/review/claim/complete) each with a one-word effect, so an agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It is clearly distinguishable in substance from get_activity_raffle and configure_activity_raffle, though it never names those siblings to route explicitly.

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?

Gives per-action semantics plus explicit workflow rules: default is preview, confirmation requires same params + previewHash + consent=true + preview=false, retries must reuse requestId rather than re-drawing, review requires the user to personally see evidence, and claim requires a user-supplied claimCode. This is strong when-to-use context, but it does not address when to pick this tool over its raffle siblings.

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