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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description goes far beyond these by disclosing detailed behavioral semantics: all automated combatants are listed, exact kind values, is_npc semantics, how player_id is used for targeting, the content of combat_state, webifier stacking caps, the precise conditions for can_escape, and the meaning of intercepted. It even clarifies state inference pitfalls. This is exemplary transparency.

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 every clause delivers non-obvious semantic value: field meanings, edge cases, and behavioral fallbacks. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then unpacks nested details. Slightly dense single-paragraph structure, but no filler sentences.

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, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return contents. It enumerates participant fields, combat_state fields, escape mechanics, webbing behavior, interception semantics, out-of-battle fallback, and side effects (none, no tick cost). An agent has enough detail to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 its schema description ('Your session ID from login/register') fully covers its meaning, yielding 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific nuance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 immediately names the full state returned: participants, zones, sides, and your stats. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it never names sibling tools like get_battle_summary or get_battle_log to explicitly differentiate itself.

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 description implies when to use it ('If not in a battle, shows any active battle in your system') and notes it is a query with no tick cost, which gives useful context. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as 'use get_battle_summary for a concise overview.'

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