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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds two things they don't cover: the 25-item page cap with cursor continuation and the required mcp:read scope. That is genuine context beyond structured fields, though return shape remains unspecified.

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 terse sentences, zero filler, with the page-size limit front-loaded and the permission requirement trailing as a prerequisite.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers count, pagination, and auth. A slightly fuller account of what a battle record contains or how to source the cursor's at/id would close the remaining gap.

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 parameter is an object named 'before' holding at/id fields. The description mentions 'a cursor for the next page' but never ties it to the 'before' parameter or explains how to obtain its at/id values, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 clear verb and resource (lists battles) with implicit 'my' scope and page size. An agent can tell it apart from get_my_battle or list_my_rosters, though it never spells out that it returns only the caller's battles.

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 versus get_my_battle or other list tools, and no mention of when pagination is needed. The only conditional statement is the auth requirement.

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