lookup_game_variant

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Look up' implies a safe read, and the enumerated content tells the agent what data exists per variant, but nothing is said about return shape (full rules text vs. summary), data freshness, or whether unknown variant keywords error or fall back to a list.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the five content categories before the variant enumeration. The long parenthetical list of 15 variants is bulky but earns some place as a scope signal for matching user-supplied game names; it could be trimmed to a representative sample.

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 single optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what content domains are available and the all-variants default. Missing only return-format expectations and behavior on unrecognized keywords, which are minor for this complexity level.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'variant' parameter with slug/keyword examples and the omit-to-list behavior. The description adds no syntax, aliasing, or matching rules beyond that. 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?

States a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('poker variants') and enumerates the content classes returned: dealing rules, hole-card usage, betting structures, hand rankings, starting-hand tiers. The scope is concrete and matches the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like lookup_poker_rule or lookup_starting_hand, which keeps it below a 5.

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: an agent infers it should call this when it needs variant-level rules. The description does clarify the omit-parameter behavior ('Omit to list all 15 poker game variants'), which is useful, but it gives no when-not guidance or routing versus lookup_poker_rule / lookup_starting_hand, which clearly overlap in scope.

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