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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds non-obvious state behavior: your own pending move is visible, the opponent's pending move is hidden until resolution, and a timed-out move becomes a block. That is meaningful domain behavior beyond what the annotations convey. It does not cover error conditions, authentication, or match-state shape, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information. The core action is front-loaded and the visibility and timeout rules follow without 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?

For a simple single-resource read with full annotation coverage and a fully described one-parameter schema, the description supplies the important domain-specific visibility rules. It does not describe the returned bout structure, but no output schema exists and the key behavioral caveats are covered.

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?

There is a single required parameter, match_id, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Read one bout." This clearly signals a single-match read, which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like find_matches and mutation siblings like arena_move. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied by the phrase "Read one bout"; the description does not say when to call this versus find_matches, arena_move, or arena_leaderboard. There is useful contextual behavior about pending moves, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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