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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds rich behavioral detail: is_npc semantics, effective_speed cap at 75%, can_escape's independent boolean causes, latch_status gates, and out-of-battle fallback behavior. It also transparently warns the agent to read the three booleans rather than inferring causes, which is exactly the kind of nuance that prevents misuse.

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?

The description is long but exceptionally dense: every sentence explains a distinct behavioral detail or field meaning that an agent needs to correctly interpret the response. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers the most critical combat-state semantics without padding.

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 sparse annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return state, and it meets that burden. It covers participant fields, personal combat_state, escape conditions, boarding latch semantics, and the no-battle fallback, leaving little ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 only one parameter, session_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'View current battle status', and then defines the exact scope: full battle state with participants, zones, sides, and personal stats. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_battle_summary or get_battle_log, which are narrower history/summary views.

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?

It gives useful context — it works as a query with no tick cost and shows any active battle in your system when not in battle — but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_battle_summary or get_battle_log. The usage conditions are implied rather than explicit.

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