lounge_submit_answer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers well: it discloses the tool is FREE, limits to a single attempt, and explains the exact wagering outcomes for confidence (correct 99 earns +99, wrong 99 costs -564). It doesn't describe return values or error cases, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, wagering explanation, and safe-mode advice. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple submit tool, the description covers prerequisites (purchased), the single-attempt constraint, and the risk/reward of confidence. There is no output schema, and the response format isn't described, which is a minor gap, but the essential usage context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema, particularly for the confidence parameter with concrete scoring examples and safe-mode advice. It doesn't add much for guess or puzzleId, but the schema already documents their source and meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Submit your single attempt for a purchased puzzle or duel.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like lounge_play and lounge_attempt_duel by focusing on the final answer submission.

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 context for when to use: after purchasing a puzzle or duel, and explicitly notes this is a single attempt. It also gives strategic guidance on using optional confidence versus omitting it to play safe. It doesn't name alternative tools for when NOT to use it, but the single-attempt/purchased condition provides an implicit exclusion.

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