lounge_play

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals the cost ($0.02/$0.10), the one-attempt limit, the 10-minute deadline, and the tournament relevance. It does not mention what response is returned after purchase, which would be useful, but the provided behavioral traits are rich and specific.

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 two sentences, yet it packs in pricing, game types, attempt limit, time window, submission pathway, and tournament counting. Every clause adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the purpose, payment, constraints, and next step. It omits what the response contains (e.g., the puzzle prompt), but for a tool that simply initiates a purchase, the provided context is nearly complete. A small gap is the lack of any mention of the response format.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning to the enum values: it explains 'automaton' as tracing a register-machine program, 'walk' as dead-reckoning a robot, and 'constraint' as a seating deduction. It also ties 'tier' to cost values, going well beyond the schema's bare enumeration.

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 identifies the action: buying/playing one puzzle. It lists all seven game types (sequence, cipher, logic, induction, automaton, walk, constraint) and distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the submission step via lounge_submit_answer. The verb is specific and the resource (puzzle) is 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?

The description explains when to use this tool: before submitting an answer, with a 10-minute time limit and one-attempt restriction. It also clarifies that plays count toward the tournament. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct, and the submission flow is implied.

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