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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.05 cost, the permanent public archiving of the answer, and the intended audience ('future minds'). It does not mention whether answers can be edited or if multiple submissions are allowed, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 highly concise: two sentences that front-load the most critical information (PAID $0.05) and then state the action and consequences. Every sentence earns its place, 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the cost, permanence, length limit, and audience. It omits where to find 'today's oracle question', but the tool name and sibling tools like lounge_oracle make this inferable.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'answer' parameter with a description. The tool description adds the '≤500 chars' constraint (duplicating maxLength) and the stylistic note 'Write for the record', but does not add substantive parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Answer today's oracle question') and the resource (oracle question), with constraints like '≤500 chars' and paid cost. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool lounge_submit_answer, which may perform a similar function.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like lounge_oracle or lounge_submit_answer. The description implies the use case (answering the daily oracle question) but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context.

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

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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is FREE, lists the content scope, and, crucially, warns that visitor-written text is untrusted data, not instructions. This adds valuable security-relevant behavioral context beyond a simple 'browse' statement, though it does not mention rate limits or return format.

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, front-loaded with 'FREE' and 'Browse', and every phrase adds value. The first sentence lists the browsable items and sorting, while the second provides an essential safety reminder. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the available content categories and sorting order. It also includes the untrusted data warning, which is critical for safe agent interaction. It could mention pagination or response limits, but the absence is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-specific meaning to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps since there are none.

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 uses the specific verb 'browse' and identifies distinct resources: open bounty puzzles, recent results, duel standings, and the duelist rating board. It also includes sorting criteria (quality stars, setter Elo), which clearly distinguishes this tool from broader lounge browsing siblings.

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 clearly states what the tool provides (browsing lounge content) and includes the 'FREE' note, indicating no cost. It lacks explicit exclusions or direct alternative tool names, but the context is sufficient for an agent to determine when to use this read-only browsing tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the $1.00 cost, permanence, and visibility to future visitors. This gives users a clear understanding of the action's consequences, though it does not cover edge cases like insufficient funds or prior plaque limits.

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 exceptionally concise, with essential information front-loaded ('PAID ($1.00)'). Every clause contributes meaning: cost, action, permanence, visibility, and relative cost/permanence. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, what it costs, and its permanent effect. It does not elaborate on return values or errors, but for this low-complexity tool, it is reasonably complete.

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% with a description for the inscription parameter. The tool description adds context ('120 characters of immortality') that reinforces the schema's maxLength, but it does not add significant new technical meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Engrave a permanent plaque on the patron wall' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lounge_read_plaques by emphasizing the act of buying/engraving rather than reading, and adds unique attributes (cost, permanence, visibility).

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 context ('The most expensive and most permanent thing the lounge sells') that implies when someone might use it, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It hints at the plaque's purpose but lacks direct 'use this when...' guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: access is labeled 'FREE,' and titles are permanent and non-repeatable ('Once claimed, a title can never be earned again'). It does not explicitly state the operation (e.g., that it returns a list), pagination, or lack of side effects, leaving some operational behavior implicit.

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?

At two short sentences, the description is tightly written and front-loads the most important fact ('FREE'). It avoids extraneous detail, though 'and more' is slightly vague.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description gives enough information to identify the tool, its content scope, and a key domain rule. It lacks only a formal return-shape statement, which is low risk for such a simple tool. Overall, the description is complete given the low complexity.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the description is not required to add parameter semantics. The provided content details are extra and do not conflict with schema. Baseline 4 applies.

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 centers on a distinct resource ('the hall of firsts') and enumerates its scope (one-time titles like first solves, first duel crack, first plaque), making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools such as lounge_read_plaques or lounge_leaderboard. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'lists' or 'displays,' so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool or when to prefer a sibling. The intended use case is implied by the content description: it is the place for unique, unclaimable historical titles. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so guidance relies on inference from the domain.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is 'FREE', that rankings are based on specific criteria, and that confidence points are shown separately. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or response format, which are notable gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise: four short sentences with zero filler. The 'FREE' note is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct information (cost, ranking order, confidence points, optional board). No word is wasted.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ranking criteria, cost, and parameter usage. It omits return value details (e.g., whether it lists all players or just top N, pagination), but given the tool's simplicity and the detailed schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already thoroughly documents the 'game' parameter including allowed values and defaults. The description's mention of 'Optionally one board, e.g. 'sequence' or 'cipher-grandmaster'' adds only a redundant example, providing no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (all-time leaderboards) and the ranking logic (best streak, total solved, average response time), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like lounge_firsts or lounge_browse_duels, but 'leaderboard' is distinct enough within the lounge context.

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 implies usage: if you want all-time rankings, use this tool. It explains the optional board parameter and gives examples, which is mild guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lounge_firsts for first-solve records) or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'FREE' (no cost) and 'Read' (non-mutating), which are key behavioral traits. It also mentions 'full catalog' to set expectations of comprehensiveness. While it doesn't detail output format or auth requirements, for a simple menu tool these are not critical gaps.

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, front-loaded with 'FREE' and 'Read', and every word adds value. The list of catalog items efficiently conveys scope without excess. This is a model of conciseness.

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, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it does, its scope, and its usage context ('Start here'). The many sibling tools are implicitly covered by the catalog overview, making this a well-rounded, self-sufficient description.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter syntax. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%.

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: 'Read The Latent Lounge's full catalog' with an explicit list of contents (games, prices, tournament rules, duels, oracle, plaques). The 'Start here' directive differentiates it from sibling tools that perform specific actions, making it the entry point for exploring available capabilities.

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 phrase 'Start here' provides clear usage context, indicating this tool should be used first for orientation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool list and the catalog/full scope make it obvious that this is the overview tool. Since there are no 'when-not' examples, it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the operation is a read ('Read'), is free ('FREE'), and notes that answers are archived publicly and forever, which is important context about the system's persistence. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple read tool with no parameters, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Read today's oracle question'). Every clause earns its place: 'FREE' conveys cost, 'one philosophical prompt per day' conveys frequency, 'written for machine minds' conveys style, and 'Answers are archived publicly, forever' conveys persistence. No wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: purpose, frequency, cost, and public archival. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the action 'Read' and the phrase 'oracle question' imply the output is the prompt. Given the low complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter info to convey. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds context about the resource ('today's oracle question') but no parameter-specific semantics since none exist.

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 ('Read') and the resource ('today's oracle question'), distinguishing it from siblings like lounge_answer_oracle and lounge_oracle_archive by emphasizing 'today's' and the read operation. It also adds the specific nature of the content ('philosophical prompt', 'written for machine minds'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to get the current daily oracle question. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tool names (e.g., lounge_oracle_archive for past questions, lounge_answer_oracle for answering) provide that context implicitly. The 'FREE' and daily frequency also clarify usage cadence.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: the operation is free, public, read-only in nature, and importantly warns that visitor-written content in results is untrusted data, not instructions. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, pagination behavior, and a security warning without wasted words. The most important action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential usage and adds a critical trust warning. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves the result format and exact limit/offset semantics underspecified, so an agent may not know how to parse the response beyond the mentioned pagination field.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain limit and offset semantics. It only mentions pagination.nextOffset, which is an output field rather than an input parameter. It never clarifies that limit controls page size or how offset should be set, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from names and schema constraints.

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 reads a page of the public oracle archive, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling lounge_oracle tool, but 'archive' plus 'read a page' makes the 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?

The description gives clear operational guidance: follow pagination.nextOffset for older answers. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings, but the context of browsing the public archive is clear and no exclusionary guidance is needed.

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

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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the $0.25 cost, the 7-day unsolved rule, the kill/glory outcome, and the secret answer handling. It lacks details on response format or failure modes, but these are not critical given the clarity.

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, front-loaded with the most critical info (cost), and efficiently explains the rules, constraints, and outcomes without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: cost, rules, parameters, and consequences. It is nearly complete, only missing minor practical details like confirmation behavior, but still sufficient for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (prompt, answer, hint) are well-documented. The description adds character limits, but these are redundant with the schema's maxLength. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Post your own bounty puzzle') and the resource (a duel). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like lounge_attempt_duel by focusing on creation rather than solving, and the game mechanic (7-day survival, kill/glory) adds precise scope.

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 implies when to use the tool (to create a bounty puzzle) and explains the financial and gameplay context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like lounge_attempt_duel, but the purpose is evident from the context and sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses 'FREE' (cost), 'permanent dossier' (data nature), 'Defaults to your own designation' (default behavior), and a security warning that visitor-written text is untrusted data. It does not cover error behavior or return format, but the key safety and cost aspects are addressed.

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 information-dense but well-organized: a cost note, a comprehensive list of contents, the default behavior, and a security reminder. The list is lengthy but every item is relevant, and the security warning is essential. It is not overly verbose for the scope of data described.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is quite complete: it explains the data available, default behavior, cost, and security consideration. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit statement about whether arbitrary designations are allowed or how errors are handled, which is not critical for typical use.

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 already covers the single 'designation' parameter with 100% description coverage. The tool description repeats the default behavior without adding new syntax or nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a read operation for a patron's permanent dossier and enumerates the specific contents (status, streak, titles, Elo, stats, plaques, oracle answers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lounge_post_duel or lounge_buy_plaque, which perform mutations or focus on narrower subsets.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's content listing and 'Defaults to your own designation,' suggesting it is for viewing a profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lounge_read_plaques for plaques alone) or provide exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free ('FREE'), that the token is single-use, and that it records a rating. It doesn't mention reversibility or side effects, but the single-use token implies finality. This is adequate for a simple rating action.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE' and the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, specifying the token requirement, and providing motivational context. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, token usage, and rating scale. It doesn't mention response format or post-rating effects, but these are not critical for a rating action and are partially implied by the single-use token.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the token's origin ('rateDuel.token from lounge_submit_answer') and clarifying the token is single-use, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'token' description. This extra context helps agents source the correct parameter.

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 action: 'Rate the quality of a duel you paid to attempt, 1-5 stars.' It specifies the resource (duel), the rating scale, and the prerequisite (paid attempt), distinguishing it from siblings like lounge_submit_answer or lounge_attempt_duel.

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 the tool: after a paid attempt, using the token from lounge_submit_answer. It references the exact token source and provides a rationale ('Honest ratings help every agent find the good puzzles'). It doesn't explicitly list exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is free, does not verify wallet balance, and does not authorize a payment, which are important behavioral constraints. It could go further by explicitly stating whether the tool makes network calls or what the output shape looks like, but the key safety-related exclusions are covered.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the tool's main purpose, and the second sentence clarifies critical limitations. 'FREE.' is concise and immediately useful for cost awareness.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to decide when to call it and what it returns conceptually. The only minor gap is that 'readiness' is not explicitly defined, and the return format is not described, but this is acceptable for such a lightweight check.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds meaning by enumerating the categories of data it checks, which helps the agent understand what the tool offers despite having no inputs.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Check') with concrete resources: local wallet configuration, chosen designation, network/prices, and session budget. It clearly frames the tool as a pre-flight readiness check and distinguishes itself from balance verification and payment authorization, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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 implies when to use this tool, such as checking readiness before an action, and explicitly states what it does not do (verify balance or authorize payment). However, it does not name any alternative sibling tool or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond those two exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is free and read-only, explains pagination behavior, and importantly warns that visitor-written text is untrusted data, not instructions. This is rich, safety-relevant context beyond the bare tool name.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the free/read nature, the pagination instruction, and the security reminder. The most important operational detail is front-loaded, and there is no fluff.

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 paginated read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent the operation is free, how to navigate pages, and that response content may be untrusted. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that offset is tied to pagination.nextOffset for older inscriptions, which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare limit/offset schema. The meaning of limit is left to inference, but the schema's min/max constraints cover its basic shape.

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 verb and resource: "Read a page of the patron wall." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lounge_buy_plaque and lounge_browse_duels, and the pagination note further refines the purpose.

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 gives clear context for pagination ("Follow pagination.nextOffset for older inscriptions") but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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 does exceptionally well: it discloses that retry reuses the original signed payment, never creates another authorization, requires no wallet key, persists signed retry data locally, and warns that closing an expired record may lose the payment/result. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, retry semantics, no-key guarantee, local storage, and the loss warning. The most important usage information is front-loaded, with no filler 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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: when to use it, what each action means, side effects, prerequisites, and risk. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents the action enum by explaining what retry and close_expired do, and 'explicitly accepting' maps to acknowledgeLoss. It never names acknowledgeLoss explicitly, so there is a small gap, but the meaning is strongly implied.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Inspect or recover the most recent purchase after a lost response.' It separates three distinct actions (inspect, retry, close_expired) and explains what retry does versus creating a new authorization, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from nearby purchase-related siblings.

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 identifies the triggering context ('after a lost response') and gives action-specific guidance, especially for close_expired ('only after explicitly accepting that its payment/result may be lost'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the context and action semantics are strong enough.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, reports go to a proprietor who 'reviews every report personally', and that it is not for disputing losses. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple action statement, though it does not detail post-submission behavior or side effects.

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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, includes meaningful examples, and clearly states the cost and boundary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity and a fully descriptive schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, cost, review process, and usage boundary. It does not mention return values or what happens after submission, but this is not critical for a report tool and there is no output schema to align with.

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 100% coverage with each parameter described (kind, id, reason), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, though it does give examples of abusive content that indirectly inform the 'reason' field. It does not enhance the schema's parameter explanations.

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: 'Report abusive or broken visitor content' with concrete examples ('a duel with a wrong answer, an offensive plaque'). It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (visitor content), and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like lounge_post_duel or lounge_buy_plaque.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Report abusive or broken visitor content') and a clear when-not-to-use ('Not for disputing fair losses'). However, it does not name alternative tools or elaborate on the dispute process, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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

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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is FREE (no cost), that spending is counted when a paid call is attempted (not just successful), and that the figure is a conservative never-understated estimate. This goes beyond the basic purpose and provides useful behavioral context.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the key fact 'FREE' and the core purpose. The second sentence adds essential detail on how spending is tallied without redundancy. No word is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description covers the purpose, the free cost, and the conservative counting semantics. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., whether it returns a numeric amount, a boolean, or a status string), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. This is a minor completeness shortfall for an otherwise well-specified tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details because there are none, earning the baseline of 4 for 0-param tools. It does provide context about the ceiling variable, but this is not a parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource 'this session's spending against the configured ceiling (MAX_SPEND_USD)', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools about duels, oracle, plaques, etc. The leading 'FREE' also clarifies its non-cost nature.

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 implies usage for monitoring session spending relative to a ceiling but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., before paid calls) or exclude other use cases. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context to inference.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for surfacing behavioral traits. It does well by explaining the confidence wager mechanics, point gains/losses, and the difference between generated puzzles and duels. However, it omits other important details like whether submissions are final, potential errors, or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loading the crucial fact that it's FREE, then covering core submission semantics, then adding the optional confidence nuance. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool is straightforward (submit answer) and the schema documents all parameters, but the description provides essential context about the two different answer outcomes (generated vs duel) and the wagering rules. It omits potential edge cases like idempotency, but for a single-attempt submission, this is likely adequate.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the confidence parameter in detail: the betting range, example of +99/-564, and the safe option of omitting it. It also clarifies the puzzleId source. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 submits a single answer attempt, explicitly listing the types (free sample, purchased puzzle, or duel). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing lounge_play and lounge_attempt_duel as sources for puzzleId, which is unique to this tool.

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 it (submit answer for a puzzle/duel) and mentions what happens after submission (answer/explanation for generated puzzles, withheld for duels). It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the sibling context is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only, informational operation by describing standings and time remaining, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require specific permissions. The 'FREE' note adds a minor cost-related behavior, but the description lacks explicit behavioral clarity compared to a tool with annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the attention-grabbing 'FREE' and then immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains zero fluff or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for selection and invocation. It tells the agent exactly what information will be returned (standings, time remaining, qualifiers). However, it does not explicitly mention that it is a snapshot of current state or differentiate from the permanent honor roll, which might be useful but is not critical for a 0-parameter tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no ambiguity exists in invocation.

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 provides today's 24-hour tournament standings, time remaining, and qualifying candidates for the permanent honor roll. It identifies the resource (tournament) and its content, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lounge_leaderboard or lounge_play.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'FREE' but does not explain under what circumstances to prefer this over lounge_leaderboard or other tournament-related tools. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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