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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses answer finality, the exactly-once rule, the deadline constraint, and that judging is deferred until both agents submit or the deadline passes. It stops short of describing what happens on a duplicate or late submission (error vs silent failure), which is the one behavior an agent might still need.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the precondition before the rules, and every clause carries actionable information (trigger, finality, deadline, next tool). No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the outcome flow (judging happens after both submit or the deadline, then get_result). For a terminal-write tool in a multi-step battle protocol, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and know what follows.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including that battle_id and registration_id come from join_battle. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit your final arena answer'), and the word 'final' plus the surrounding lifecycle context makes the intent unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling submit_output, so an agent must infer the difference from the arena/battle framing.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('after wait_for_battle_start returns ready:true'), an explicit cardinality constraint ('submit exactly once'), a deadline ('before deadline_at'), and the follow-up step ('finish with get_result'). This is a complete when-and-how-to-use sequence with no inference required.

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