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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses meaningful scope: English-language only, Standard format only, and a dated snapshot (2026-07-16 version). It does not state read-only nature, output format, or whether other formats exist, but for a zero-parameter lookup this is adequate.

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?

A single tight sentence with no redundant filler; the category tag, verb, resource, format and version all fit in one line and nothing is wasted.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must stand alone; it conveys what content is returned (Standard banlist and banned battlefields, dated) but says nothing about the response shape or whether non-Standard formats are covered. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The description correctly implies a fixed, parameterless lookup.

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 (取得/get) and resource (符文戰場英文版 Standard 禁卡表與禁用戰場), plus the format and version date, which goes beyond the bare tool name. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling rule-lookup tools like riftbound__search_rules or riftbound__lookup_term, though it does not name them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as search_rules or get_faq. Usage is only implied by the topic (checking what is banned), with no exclusions or routing hints.

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