Cash out round rewards

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-read-only, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds the ROUND_EVAL availability and shop transition, which is useful, but it doesn't detail what exactly is finalized or whether any actions become irreversible beyond the annotation. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the availability constraint and then states the action and result. There is no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise.

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-transition tool, the description covers when it can be used and what it does, and with annotations and schema covering safety and parameters, it is reasonably complete. It lacks output-format detail, but no output schema exists, so this is acceptable.

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 only parameter, expected_state_token, is fully described in the schema as the latest state token and required. The description adds no parameter-level insight, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action clearly: 'settles rewards and enters the shop' and restricts it to ROUND_EVAL, which distinguishes it from siblings like play_cards or next_round. However, it does not specify what rewards are included (e.g., money, interest), leaving slight ambiguity.

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 phrase '仅 ROUND_EVAL 可用' gives an explicit precondition for when the tool may be called, which is strong guidance. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions beyond the state gate, but the context is sufficient for the agent to decide when to invoke it.

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