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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses blocking behavior (up to 25s), idempotent polling ('Call repeatedly'), and the nullable action_required result. It does not discuss edge cases like timeout behavior, but the core behavioral traits are exposed.

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?

One efficient sentence packs the key behavioral constraint, the return contract, and the polling instruction without wasted words. The most important operational detail—call repeatedly—is included rather than buried.

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-parameter read-and-wait tool, this is mostly complete: it describes the blocking wait, the returned fields, and when action_required is null. The notable gap is that token is left undocumented, which hurts invocation completeness, but the description otherwise answers the important questions.

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?

There is a single required token parameter with 0% schema documentation coverage, and the description never explains what token means, where it comes from, or why it is needed. The agent cannot correctly construct the invocation from this definition.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Wait... return your view of the game') and a concrete resource, and it lists the exact content of the returned view. It also implies its role relative to siblings like act by framing this as the turn-taking/observation step.

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 gives clear usage context: call this while waiting for your turn, call repeatedly, and use the returned action_required to know when something is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like act, but the polling nature and action_required signal effectively guide the agent.

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