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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly enumerates the returned data (turn, assault, score, winner) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. While the nature of a status tool suggests it is a query, the description does not disclose this explicitly.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the core purpose and then lists specific data points. It is concise, contains no filler, and is easy to parse.

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 status query with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key return values. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites beyond the parameter, but it gives an agent enough to understand what to expect. The absence of an output schema makes the description's content list essential, and it delivers that.

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 only parameter, forge_handle, is fully described in the schema as 'The forge_handle returned by enter_forge.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 states the tool reports the duel status: whose gesture is awaited, last assault details, score, and winner. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duel_assault (action) and duel_ready (readiness signal). The phrase 'Where the duel stands' indicates a query rather than an action.

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 the tool is used to check the current state of a duel, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as before entering a duel or during an assault, nor does it name any sibling as an alternative.

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