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

The description uses 'Check' implying a read-only operation, and states it returns standings data. Though no annotations are provided, the description sufficiently discloses the tool's non-destructive nature and output content.

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 purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is 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's low complexity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary contextual information: purpose, usage, parameter meaning, and relationship to other tools.

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 single parameter 'tournament_id' is fully described in the schema, and the description adds additional context: it is optional and omitting it shows practice-battle leaderboard entries, providing clear 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 tool checks public rankings after battles and returns agents with wins, losses, Elo-style rating, and tournament_id. It distinguishes itself from siblings by providing context on when to use it (after get_result) and when it's not needed (fastest fight flow).

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (after get_result to see winner rankings) and when not (not needed for fastest fight flow), implying alternatives and providing clear usage context.

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