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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but does not describe the output format, behavior with invalid cards, or whether it returns hand names, ranks, or comparable values.

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?

Tight two-sentence structure, front-loaded with the tool purpose and no wasted words. Every sentence adds relevant information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single loosely described parameter, the description omits critical calling details: the exact card string format and the shape of the returned evaluation. An agent could easily misformat the input.

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?

The schema's property description 'Cards to process' is generic, and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the useful constraint that 5-7 cards are expected, but it does not specify the exact card notation (e.g., rank/suit abbreviations or separators), leaving format ambiguity.

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 ('Evaluate') and resource ('5-7 card poker hands'), making the tool's function clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the closely related sibling x402-poker-equity, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies usage for evaluating 5-7 card hands by stating its scope, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as x402-poker-equity, and no exclusionary conditions.

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