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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: a hard cap of 25 items per page and a required mcp:read scope. It does not describe the cursor lifecycle or ordering of results.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The pagination limit is front-loaded and the auth requirement follows, each earning its place.

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?

With no output schema and an undocumented nested cursor parameter, an agent still lacks clarity on the exact `before` payload and result ordering. Page size, pagination existence, and auth scope are covered, so the essentials are present but not fully sufficient to call it confidently on a second page.

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% and the single `before` parameter is a nested object with `at` and `id` fields that the schema does not describe. The description only alludes to 'a cursor for the next page,' which gestures at the parameter's role but does not explain the {at, id} shape or how to obtain the value. Partial compensation for a documentation gap.

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 and resource (lists battles scoped to 'my'), which cleanly distinguishes it from list_factions, list_my_rosters, and list_reference among the siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the 'my' scope is self-differentiating.

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 indication of when to use this versus get_my_battle, list_my_rosters, or search_reference. Usage is only implied by the name and description; no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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