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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does useful work: "(unsigned)" signals this is a preparation step with no on-chain state change, and it discloses what is shown (both ratings, whether the gap is allowed, your chance to win). It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit or submission behavior.

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, then the output and next step. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, disclosure, and the follow-on tool, but leaves parameter meanings and auth/return-format details unclear. Adequate but with real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define mine/theirs/wallet, but it only hints via "one of your fighters" and "open challenge." The exact meaning (your fighter id vs. opponent fighter id) and the wallet's role are left to inference.

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+resource: it prepares (unsigned) the acceptance of an open challenge using one of your fighters. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_challenge (initiate) and prepare_bet (wager), and it names the next-step sibling explicitly.

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?

Clear context for use:"acceptance of an open challenge with one of your fighters" and an explicit follow-on action ("Then bet with prepare_bet"). It routes the agent to the next tool, though it does not state when NOT to use it or preconditions such as wallet login.

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