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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds a concrete, non-schema behavioral requirement — 'Requires mcp:read' — which the agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of describing result shape or whether all rosters are returned unscoped.

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 with zero waste; the resource and scope come first, the auth prerequisite second. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it, plus an auth scope note. A brief mention of return contents or result completeness would close the last 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule the description need not document parameter semantics. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 and scope ('rosters saved to the signed-in Praetorium account'), which is more precise than the title alone. It distinguishes itself implicitly from get_my_roster (singular) and save_roster by being a listing, but never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by 'lists the rosters saved to the signed-in account' — an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool rather than a detail fetch. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs get_my_roster or list_my_battles, and no exclusions or follow-up routing.

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