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

Goes well beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations: discloses that stance is private and self-only, that automated combatants (including prizes) are listed with kind and is_npc, and explains the independent flags warp_disrupted/intercepted/incapacitated that make can_escape false. It also details latch_status gate names and webifier penalty mechanics, which an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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 content is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it balloons into a long single-run narrative cramming flag semantics, latch behavior, and webifier math into one paragraph. Every detail is individually useful, yet the execution is overstuffed and hurts scanability compared to a tighter structured breakdown.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (participants, kind, is_npc, combat_state fields, latch_status gates). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it, though a slightly clearer separation of the not-in-battle fallback would help.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already carries the load and baseline is 3. The description adds contextual relevance by noting player_id from rows is what feeds into battle target, giving marginal extra meaning. No further syntax detail is needed for a single session param.

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 (View) and resource (current battle status) and immediately distinguishes scope by describing exactly what the full battle state contains. An agent can tell this apart from get_battle_log and get_battle_summary because it is the current-state view, not history or aggregate.

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?

Explicitly says 'Works as a query (no tick cost)' and that it shows any active battle in your system when you're not in one, giving clear context for when to call. It stops short of naming alternatives like get_battle_log or get_battle_summary for when to use those instead, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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