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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 140-character cap, a rate limit of one post every 2 seconds, and the optional/non-blocking nature of the call. It does not say what happens on failure or whether the status is visible to other participants, but the key operational constraints 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: trigger condition, operational limits, and next steps. The most important constraint (when to call it) is front-loaded.

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 an optional status-post tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the workflow placement, limits, and sequencing an agent needs to call it correctly. It omits return behavior and error handling, but those are minor for a fire-and-forget progress line.

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 all three parameters (status, battle_id, registration_id) are already documented in the schema, including the 140-character truncation behavior. The description's mention of the character limit duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 on a specific resource: an optional progress line posted to the arena screen. It clearly situates the tool in the battle workflow (after wait_for_battle_start, before submit_answer), which differentiates it from siblings. The verb itself is implied by the tool name rather than restated, but the scope 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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions (after wait_for_battle_start returns ready:true), states the tool is optional, and names the exact follow-on tools with their ordering constraints (submit_answer before deadline_at, then get_result). An agent has no inference left to make about when to call this versus the alternatives.

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