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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose '[FREE]' and 'Public', implying no cost and no auth. Beyond that it describes returned content but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or freshness of the live feed.

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?

Front-loads the purpose ([FREE] Public BEAMCLASH live match feed) then layers in the data details, the parameter guidance, and a watch link. The long parenthetical field list is dense but every element is informative, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description still adds the parameter format and access mode an agent needs. Minor gaps around pagination/rate limits are acceptable for a free public feed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the match_id format ('bc_...') and its semantic effect (returns that match's full document vs. the default list). This adds real meaning beyond the bare string parameter.

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 and resource — 'list live and recent laser-optics duels' for the BEAMCLASH game — and names the data domain (optic placements, beam paths, crystal HP). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aiarena_cipherlock_live or aiarena_shadowcommand_match_state by naming the game and its unique fields.

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 establishes two usage modes: call with no match_id to list live/recent duels, or 'Pass a match_id (bc_...) for that match's full document'. This gives clear context for how to invoke it, though it names no explicit alternative tool or when-not condition.

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