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 that the response is 'one bounded response', which hints the agent need not paginate, but most of the text enumerates return contents that the existing output schema already supplies.

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 primary action ('Returns every pickable unit'), and each sentence earns its place by covering scope then the detachment option. The field enumeration is dense but not wasteful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description adequately conveys scope plus the detachment behavior. It is only thin on when to prefer this over sibling listing tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning for detachment (including it yields complete rules, enhancements and stratagems), but says nothing about faction or battleSize beyond what the schema states.

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+resource: returns every pickable unit for a faction, and enumerates the returned fields (costs, composition, attachments, limits, roles, keywords). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_factions or get_reference, so the agent must infer the boundary, but the resource is specific enough to distinguish it.

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?

The second sentence implies a usage path: add a detachment to get its full rules and enhancements in one call rather than opening pages individually. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (list_factions, get_reference) and no stated prerequisites beyond the schema's required faction.

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