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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses the scan cap of 120, newest-first scope, wallet specificity, and inclusion of voided/one-sided fight refunds. It does not clarify read-only nature, permissions, return format, or what happens to winnings beyond the scan limit.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence with the core scope and follow-up action front-loaded; every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 low-complexity list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key scope, cap, and next step. Minor gaps remain around return shape and scan default behavior, but the essential invocation details are present.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it gives meaning to `wallet` as the collecting wallet and `scan` as scanning up to 120 fights. It does not specify wallet address format, whether `scan` defaults, or its exact unit beyond the cap.

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 clearly identifies the resource: Fight Club bet winnings and refunds collectible by a wallet, scoped to newest fights. It lacks an explicit verb like "list" or "returns," but an agent can still distinguish this retrieval tool from prepare_fight_claim.

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?

It explicitly points to the follow-up action: collect each winnings item with prepare_fight_claim. It gives clear context but does not state when not to use it or what to do if no winnings are found.

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