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

Though no annotations exist, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'reading it starts your deadline clock'. It also implies that this is a read operation that triggers a timer. However, it does not mention authentication 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, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by sequential instructions in the second sentence.

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 output schema exists and the description lists the return fields, this is complete. All necessary context for correct invocation is provided: ordering relative to register_for_battle, the deadline aspect, and the next step (submit_output).

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% and the description adds context for both parameters: battle_id should be the battle.battle_id (not template id), and registration_id is for tracking private deadline and badge path, which goes beyond the 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 uses specific verbs ('Reveal the challenge') and clearly identifies the resource (battle prompt). It lists the exact fields returned and distinguishes its role from sibling tools like get_result and submit_output.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('after register_for_battle') and instructs the agent to answer locally then call submit_output before deadline_at. Provides clear sequential context but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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