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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing that the seed is only revealed after the duel is over, but it says little else about what the returned public state contains or how in-progress duels behave.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core subject is front-loaded. The first sentence is awkwardly phrased, but the description is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 read-only single-id lookup with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'public state' includes and whether the tool works mid-duel. It covers seed availability after completion, but return-value expectations remain underspecified.

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?

The single required id parameter is fully documented in the schema with a pattern and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no further meaning about the id or its accepted formats, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource as the public state of a duel and adds a scope note ('vs Training Blip'), but it omits an explicit verb and the phrase is ambiguous about whether it applies only to Training Blip duels or all duels. It does not clearly differentiate itself from close siblings such as watch_match or match_view.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of watch_match or match_view. The only usage-adjacent hint is 'so you can replay it,' which implies a post-completion use case but does not state when-not-to-use or name an alternative.

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