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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned payload fields, which matters because there is no output schema. The only noted side behavior is that with_map extends the response with the surrounding map. It does not describe failure behavior (e.g. what happens outside combat), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence: the resource first, contents next, the parameter last after a semicolon. No filler. It is dense to the point of telegraphic (abbreviation 'ОД', clipped phrasing), which slightly trades readability for brevity.

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 zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the important ground: it tells the agent what the response contains and what the one flag does. The remaining gap is the absence of any precondition or error context (must a battle be active?), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does explain with_map as 'карта вокруг' (map around), giving the flag concrete meaning, but the wording is terse and doesn't state cost, size, or default behavior when omitted.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Состояние боя' = battle state) and enumerates exactly what the state contains: turn, seconds, action points, enemies with distance, fog visibility, weapon modes, loot, plan. That lets an agent recognize it as the read-side counterpart to siblings like game_battle_plan, game_battle_submit and game_battle_clear without opening the schema, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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: an agent infers 'call this to read battle state' from the description itself. There is no explicit when-to-call guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. must be in an active battle), and no routing to alternatives such as game_battle_plan for planning or game_battle_submit for acting.

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