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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that a paid stake is refunded in full to the payout address and that seated matches cannot be left (turns time out). The annotations already mark this as mutating and idempotent, and the description adds concrete consequence detail with no contradiction.

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 core action, then the refund consequence, then the constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the refund effect, and the key constraint. It stops short of what the return looks like or what happens on an invalid/expired session, leaving a small gap.

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 single session parameter is already documented with its source ('Session id from join_game or confirm_payment'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Stop waiting for a table') that is clearly distinct from siblings like join_game and wait_for_turn. An agent can tell immediately that this is the inverse of joining.

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?

Usage is clearly implied by 'Stop waiting for a table' and it adds an explicit exclusion: a match you are already seated at cannot be left. It does not name the alternative tool an agent should use for a seated match (e.g., make_move/wait_for_turn), which keeps it from a 5.

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