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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement ('Requires mcp:read') and notes the view is 'current' (state-dependent), which is useful beyond the annotations, but it does not explain what 'seated view' returns or whether unseen/opponent data is excluded.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the permission note. No padding, though the second sentence could carry more substance given the gaps elsewhere.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks the token semantics and a definition of the returned 'seated view'. Annotations cover safety, so the omission is not critical, but the definition is thinner than the tool warrants.

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?

There is one required parameter ('token') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate but does not mention it at all. 'For the signed-in player' and 'Requires mcp:read' loosely imply the token is the auth credential, but the format and whether it is a battle token or session token are left ambiguous.

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 ('Returns'), resource ('a battle'), and scope ('for the signed-in player'), which distinguishes it from list_my_battles and create_battle. The term 'seated view' is unexplained jargon, but the core purpose is clear.

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 use this tool versus the obvious siblings (list_my_battles for the collection, submit_battle_action for acting on a battle). The only conditional information is the permission prerequisite 'Requires mcp:read', which is a constraint rather than usage guidance.

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