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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares the operation read-only and discloses the semantics of the returned state (owned or not, free/squad seat/guard post/Muscle/resting, and until when). It omits auth requirements and pagination/scale behavior, but the mutation-safety question is answered.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned fields; the read-only note trails at the end where it belongs. No filler, though the run-on enumeration is slightly harder to parse than a short structured list.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what comes back per character, which is the main gap an agent would otherwise face. Missing only usage routing against sibling read tools and any note on result volume.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the reassuring note that nothing is sent from the address. The description adds nothing about the wallet argument, so the baseline 3 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 names a specific resource (a wallet's roster of characters) and enumerates exactly what each entry reports: ownership, current activity, and duration. It is distinguishable from generic fighters lists, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like my_fighters or standby_agents.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that 'a busy character cannot be placed in another squad' hints at checking availability before squad placement, and 'Read only' signals a safe inspection call. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool is provided.

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