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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Results of' implies a read-only operation, but nothing confirms it is non-destructive, whether auth is needed, or how fresh/complete the results are. The phrasing is evocative but not informative.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and readable, though the closing clause is stylistic rather than functional.

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-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least convey what the response contains. 'Who won, who struck midnight' gestures at the return shape but leaves the meaning of 'struck midnight' and the result format ambiguous.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 a specific resource (results of recent agent wars) and hints at return content ('who won, who struck midnight'), which distinguishes it from write siblings like start_war and join_war. However, there is no explicit verb and 'struck midnight' is cryptic flavor text rather than a concrete statement of what is returned.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_state, ladder, or open_rooms. The agent is left to infer that this is a read query for war outcomes, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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