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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does add real context beyond the name: the programs remain deployed, some are immutable, all money-staked games are closed for licensing reasons, and the tool intentionally lists rather than hides them. It does not explicitly say whether the call is read-only or what the status values look like, but the enumerated policy context is well above average for an unannotated tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, but the remaining two sentences are legal/policy justification that repeats the same point twice ('gambling is regulated and we hold no licence' vs 'we offer none of them for play with money'). Roughly a third of the text could be cut without losing agent-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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what it returns (programs plus status) and the critical policy constraint an agent must not misrepresent. Only the shape of the status values and the read-only nature are unstated, which are minor gaps at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full, unfiltered listing with no inputs required.

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 first sentence names the resource precisely ('on-chain game programs on X1') and its payload ('their status'), and the closing clause clarifies it is a listing of deployed programs. It is distinguishable from siblings such as games_index or graviton_state, though the operative verb ('lists') is buried mid-paragraph rather than leading.

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 makes a strong when-not-to-use statement ('we offer none of them for play with money', 'gambling is regulated and we hold no licence'), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. games_index, graviton_how_to_play) for an agent that actually wants playable-game information, so the agent must infer where to go next.

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