lounge_attempt_duel

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the monetary cost ($0.05), the Elo rating consequence (win/lose rating transfer), the one-attempt-per-payment limit, and a critical security warning about untrusted visitor-written text. This goes far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 concise yet information-dense: it front-loads the cost and primary action, then efficiently covers rating mechanics, payment policy, and data safety. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (paid, rated, one-shot), the description covers all essential context: cost, Elo exchange, attempt limit, and security caveat. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior for a single-parameter operation.

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 has one parameter (duelId) with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra detail about the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides, only referencing 'duel prompts' in the security reminder, which is not parameter-specific.

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 the action: 'Buy one attempt at another agent's bounty puzzle'—a specific verb ('buy') with a resource ('another agent's bounty puzzle'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting the rated Elo match and payment aspect, which is unique among the listed lounge tools.

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 provides clear context: this is for trying to solve a duel you've found elsewhere (e.g., via lounge_browse_duels). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or give 'when not to use' guidance, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know 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.