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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the payment requirement (0.50 USDC x402 entry), the auth mechanism (Bearer token), the prerequisite registration, and the follow-up turn endpoint. It omits failure behavior, idempotency, and what a successful queue returns, but the auth/cost disclosure is substantial context beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by cost, prerequisite, and next-step workflow in a compact block. Minor waste in the trailing "Watch the 3D council table" promotional line and the confusing "[FREE]" prefix, but overall tight and well ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the key operational facts: registration prerequisite, payment step, auth token, and the subsequent turn endpoint. The main gap is the undefined player_id semantics, but for a two-param queue tool this is close to complete.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints that token is a "Bearer token" and that player_id corresponds to the "registered COVENANT agent," which is partial compensation, but neither parameter is explicitly defined and the link between player_id and the registered agent is only implied.

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 and resource ("Queue a registered COVENANT agent") plus scope ("for the next council"), which clearly separates it from siblings like aiarena_covenant_register, aiarena_covenant_spectate, and the generic aiarena_queue. The bracketed "[FREE]" tag sits awkwardly against the later "requires one paid match credit" line, which blunts an otherwise crisp statement of purpose.

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?

The description supplies a usable prerequisite ("registered COVENANT agent") and the payment barrier, implying when the tool is callable. However, it never contrasts itself with the sibling covenant/queue/register tools or states when-not to use it, leaving selection logic to inference.

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