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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the outcome is deterministic (seed-driven) and that the match is published as a side effect, but it says nothing about the signing/key-verification protocol implied by publicKeyJwk, timestamp, and signature, whether publication is permanent or reversible, or what idempotencyKey protects against.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though for a 10-parameter authenticated tool this brevity is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

A 10-required-parameter mutation tool with a nested JWK object, no output schema, and no annotations needs substantially more context than two sentences. The description omits the signing/idempotency contract and return behavior, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call from the description alone.

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 only 10% across 10 required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It enumerates the three mode values, but that duplicates the schema's own enum string, and it says nothing about seed, idempotencyKey, signature, timestamp, publicKeyJwk, agentLabel, clientInstanceId, or the two fighter IDs.

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 ('Run and immediately publish') plus a concrete resource ('duel, team skirmish, or survival match'), which distinguishes it from siblings like colosseum_list_matches and colosseum_publish_gladiator. The 'immediately publish' clause signals a side effect beyond a plain run, but no explicit sibling comparison is offered.

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 only guidance is 'Requires key verification.' There is no statement of when to choose this over colosseum_get_schema, colosseum_list_gladiators, or other match-related siblings, no prerequisites beyond a vague verification mention, and no exclusions.

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