razz-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the equal distribution mechanic and implies token consumption ('your tokens'), but lacks explicit confirmation that this deducts from caller balance, error conditions (e.g., not in room), 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?

Two sentences, zero redundancy. Front-loaded with core action (rain tokens), followed by distribution mechanics. Every word earns its place—'equally' and 'everyone present' are critical behavioral qualifiers.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter tool with complete schema coverage. The description explains the operation and distribution logic. Minor gap: lacks explicit mention of balance deduction or return value expectations (though no output schema exists to document).

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that totalAmount represents a pool to be divided equally rather than per-user amounts, reinforcing the schema's 'Total amount to distribute' definition with behavioral context.

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?

Excellent clarity: specifies the action ('Rain tokens'), target ('all online users'), and scope ('in the room you've joined'). The second sentence clarifies the distribution mechanism ('equally among everyone present'), effectively distinguishing it from direct tipping or individual transfers.

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?

Implies prerequisite context ('room you've joined') but does not explicitly state 'only use after joining a room' or contrast with sibling tools like razz_tip. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., avoiding use in empty rooms or when balance is insufficient).

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