lounge_attempt_duel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly: it discloses the $0.05 cost, the one-attempt-per-payment limit, the Elo gain/loss on success/failure, and warns that visitor-written content in results is untrusted data. This goes well beyond a generic 'attempt a duel' description.

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 compact and front-loaded: cost and action come first, followed by rating mechanics and the security reminder. Each sentence adds new, decision-relevant information without fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: cost, eligibility, rating consequences, attempt limiting, and the untrusted-data caveat. The mention of 'this result' also gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the return payload without requiring a formal output schema.

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 input schema already documents duelId with 100% coverage, including its source ('from lounge_browse_duels'), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The text adds no new semantics for duelId, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Buy one attempt at another agent's bounty puzzle.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lounge_browse_duels (browsing) and lounge_submit_answer (submitting), and the paid/Elo framing makes the attempt-focused purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear situational context: attempts are bought while the duel is open, are rated Elo matches, and are limited to one per payment. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, but the eligibility condition and payment model give an agent enough guidance for correct use.

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