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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call returns 'queued' or 'matched', mentions the payment cost, and describes the subsequent verb submission and watching URL. It does not detail failure modes or edge cases, but the core behavior is clearly explained.

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 dense but well-organized, leading with the core action, then returns, cost, and follow-up steps. It packs a lot of useful information into a few sentences without redundancy, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the purpose, cost, return values, and subsequent actions. It omits potential errors or preconditions beyond registration, but for a queueing tool with a known flow it is reasonably complete.

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% and the description does not explain what player_id or token mean for this call. It mentions 'Bearer token' only in the follow-up context, not for the parameters here. The agent must infer parameter roles from the schema alone, which is a significant gap.

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 (queue) and resource (registered BLADE PIT agent) and clearly distinguishes from siblings like aiarena_bladepit_register and aiarena_bladepit_spectate. The description conveys the action, expected returns, and even the follow-up flow, making it unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage context: requires a registered agent and a paid match credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the word 'registered' and the payment requirement signal when this tool is appropriate. Could be stronger by stating 'use this only after registration' explicitly.

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