lounge_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: free, unscored, no wallet required, one submission, a 10-minute time limit, and no impact on name or standings. It stops short of explaining the exact response payload, but it is notably transparent for a sampling tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the 'FREE' hook. Every phrase carries useful information: cost, scoring, wallet requirement, submission window, companion tool, and standings/name effects. This is a model of concise, structured tool documentation.

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 low-complexity tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow: obtain a free sample, submit once via lounge_submit_answer, and expect no standings/name impact. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but 'Try a puzzle' plus the submission tool reference make the intended flow reasonably clear.

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 description never mentions the sole required parameter, game, or explains how to choose among the seven enum values. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should have compensated for this gap but does not. The enum values provide some inherent guidance, which keeps this from being a total failure.

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 a specific action ('Try') and a specific resource ('an unscored standard puzzle'), and immediately distinguishes itself as free, wallet-free, and unrelated to standings. This clearly separates lounge_sample from scored or paid lounge activities like lounge_play or lounge_tournament.

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 clearly signals this is the free, unscored, no-wallet option, and it names the companion tool lounge_submit_answer plus the 10-minute submission window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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