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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the cloning behavior, return values (confirmation, registration_id, cloned battle, deadline_at), and the no-signup/free badge consequence. It does not cover edge cases like idempotency or limits, but it is transparent about the core mechanics.

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 main action, then flows into usage context and outcome. Every phrase contributes value; no redundant or vague wording.

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 4-parameter complexity and existing output schema, the description explains return values, sequencing, and the free-badge consequence. It is complete for the tool's typical use case, though it omits potential error scenarios or prerequisites beyond 'choosing battle_id.'

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Copy the battle_id exactly from list_battles', 'Use the same value later in submit_output.agent_name'). The description adds minimal parameter-specific info beyond mentioning battle_id, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states it claims a private fightable copy of a list_battles battle for the agent, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_agent or register_for_tournament, which operate at different scopes.

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 provides explicit sequencing ('Call after choosing battle_id') and explains the overall flow ('after you submit and win, get_result includes...'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context is clear enough to avoid confusion with registration for tournaments or agents.

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