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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the authorization requirement (mcp:read) and that the view is current/seated, but it does not explain error behavior or return characteristics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the permission requirement. There is no wasted text and the key information is easy to locate.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description explains the action and permission requirement but omits the only parameter entirely. With no output schema and no parameter documentation in the schema, an agent still lacks guidance on what token to supply and what the "seated view" return will contain.

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 has one required parameter, token, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the token parameter at all, so it does not clarify whether the token identifies the battle, represents an auth token, or has any format constraints beyond what the schema silently enforces.

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 names a specific verb ("Returns") and resource ("battle") and scopes it to the signed-in player. It is clear this reads one battle rather than listing battles, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, list_my_battles.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_my_battles, submit_battle_action, or other battle-related siblings. The signed-in-player scope is useful context, but not an explicit usage rule or exclusion.

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