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

The annotations confirm the operation is read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact data points revealed by the view (turn state, legal moves, and history log). This adds utility beyond the structural hints.

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?

The description is highly concise—a single sentence that defines the entire scope of the tool's output. There is zero waste of language.

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?

Given that no output schema is provided, this description is highly effective. It acts as a contract, letting the agent know precisely the structure and type of information (moves, log, turn status) it should expect upon successful invocation.

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?

Since the input schema provides 100% coverage for the two parameters, the description does not need to add semantic meaning about the inputs. It is adequate, but does not significantly enhance what the schema already dictates.

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?

The description clearly defines the informational content returned ('Whose turn it is, your legal moves and the log.'), which serves as a strong statement of purpose for a 'view' tool. It immediately tells the agent that this tool provides game state data.

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?

While the name 'match_view' suggests a viewing action, the description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar viewing/watching siblings like 'watch_duel' or 'watch_match'. The context is implied, not guided.

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