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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the live nature, that betting is closed, pot is zero, credits can be withdrawn, and the arena is free. It does not mention any side effects or limitations of the call itself, but as a state query it is reasonably transparent. It does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The additional sentences about betting closure and free play are relevant context but add a little length. Overall it is efficient and the structure is clear, with the main action stated first.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain both the parameters and the expected output. It does explain the output (credit balance and round) and provides useful context about betting closure, but it fails to document the 'round' parameter and does not specify how to interpret the response beyond that. This leaves an agent with questions about optionality and parameter use.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It mentions 'for a wallet' which implies the wallet parameter, but it does not explain the 'round' parameter at all. It also does not clarify whether parameters are optional or how they affect the result. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 the tool's function: 'Live Graviton Arena state for a wallet - your credit balance and the current round.' It identifies a specific verb (live state), resource (wallet), and the data returned. This is distinct from betting or depositing tools, even without naming siblings, because it explicitly frames itself as a state query.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for checking wallet state and includes a prominent warning that betting is closed, implying this is not for placing stakes. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context sufficiently guides an agent to use this for state queries rather than betting or credit operations.

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