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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format ('in markdown') and the comprehensive scope of content ('every field and response code'), making it clear this is a reference/documentation tool rather than a state-changing action. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but the zero-parameter, contract-document framing strongly implies that.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the contract's key contents. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 that the tool takes no parameters, has no output schema, and is documented as a complete markdown contract covering fields and response codes, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not add or confuse parameter information, and the schema already fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing the full Agent Arena contract in markdown, covering bidding mechanics, bid value, fields, and response codes. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'displays', but the resource and content scope are unmistakable and it is distinguishable from gameplay-oriented siblings like arena_play and arena_matches.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as arena_how_to_bid or arena_board. While 'the full contract' implies this is the authoritative reference, there is no stated preference, exclusion, or alternative comparison.

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