Leave shop for next round

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and read-only=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds that it is only available in the shop and that it leads to the next Blind selection, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 one short sentence that states the availability and outcome, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple navigation action.

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 the simple action, the description provides sufficient context (shop-only, next Blind). No output schema exists, but for this tool the return value is not critical. It could mention irreversibility, but annotations already signal destructiveness.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with description '最新 state_token；必填' (latest state_token; required). The tool description adds no extra parameter details, but since schema coverage is full, baseline 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 clearly states '仅 SHOP 可用，进入下一次 Blind 选择' (only available in shop, proceed to next Blind selection), specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like select_blind and skip_blind by its scope (leaving the shop).

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 explicitly states '仅 SHOP 可用' (only available in SHOP), giving a clear condition for use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context and sibling list make it obvious that this is for leaving the shop phase rather than selecting/skipping a blind directly.

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