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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial domain behavior: the grouping under InstantBattle, RuleID keying, wager economy, and cross-references to Character.Stats StatIDs and Item bonuses, which tells the agent what the data means.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('GET ONLY the 'Match' field') before the detail. It is dense and long, but the length is justified by the absence of an output schema and each clause describes a distinct part of the returned structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly: battle-mode grouping, rule catalogue keying, wager economy, the combat-role→StatID mapping, combat params, and custom formulas. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (title_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('GET ONLY the 'Match' field of TitlePublicConfigurationModel') and immediately scopes what that resource contains. An agent can distinguish this read-config tool from the save_match sibling and the other get_* config tools without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only phrasing and the sibling save_match, but the description never explicitly says when to use this vs save_match or any alternative. No exclusion or prerequisite guidance is provided; the agent must infer the read vs write split from the name and annotations.

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