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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns state information (credit balance, pot, bettors) and implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention whether the 'round' parameter is required, what happens if omitted, or any side effects. It's a read-state tool, so the lack of destructive behavior is implied but not explicit.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place. It loses a point because the second sentence is a bit colloquial ('so you are not guessing at the round') but still informative.

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 simple state-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return values (credit balance, pot, bettors) and the timing. However, it doesn't explain parameter semantics or what 'round' means in context, and with no annotations, an agent might not know if this is a safe read-only call. It's adequate but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'round' and 'wallet' implicitly ('your wallet', 'the round'), but doesn't explain their format, defaults, or optionality. The description says 'Call this before betting' but doesn't clarify whether 'round' is needed to get current state or if it's a filter. This is a significant gap for a 2-param tool with zero schema coverage.

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 ('Call') and resource ('Graviton Arena state'), and clarifies it returns wallet credit balance, current pot, and who is betting. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like graviton_bet and graviton_house_pool by focusing on the arena state for a wallet. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not directly differentiating from similar state tools.

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 context: 'Call this before betting so you are not guessing at the round.' This implies the tool is for pre-bet state checking and not for placing bets or other actions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the timing guidance is strong enough to guide an agent.

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