get_poker_term_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the authoritative source (the official Smarter.Poker glossary), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown term or what the response looks like; the read-only, non-destructive character is only implied by "look up."

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with no filler or restatement of the tool name. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter lookup tool this is close to sufficient: purpose, source, and scope are all stated. The only minor gap is that response shape and miss-handling are unaddressed, though with a 100%-covered one-param schema that is a small omission.

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 100% at a single parameter, and the schema already supplies its own examples ("pot odds", "icm", "3-bet"). The description adds no extra constraints on the term string, such as casing tolerance or synonym handling, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("look up authoritative definitions, GTO concepts, and rules") and identifies the source as the official Smarter.Poker glossary, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns conceptually. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_poker_rule, which overlaps on "rules".

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "look up ... from the official glossary" — there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus lookup_poker_rule or lookup_game_variant, nor any exclusion for rules content that belongs to the sibling tool. It is enough to guess intent but leaves real ambiguity for overlapping cases.

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