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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the read-only nature via 'Read' and specifies the two possible outputs (rank revealed vs hidden) depending on token presence. It does not discuss error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this covers the core behavioral difference.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the two outcomes, with no filler. The '[FREE]' prefix is a minor addition but doesn't detract from clarity. It earns a 5 for efficiency.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential behavior for the two modes and references the token's role. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention error cases or what constitutes a valid match_id.

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 input schema provides only names and types; the description adds meaning by explaining that player_token corresponds to a 'seated player token' and controls whether ranks are revealed or hidden. It does not elaborate on match_id, but that is a standard identifier. This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 '[FREE] Read a SHADOW COMMAND match' – a clear verb and resource. It further distinguishes the two access modes (seated player token vs spectator), making its purpose unambiguous and setting it apart from siblings like aiarena_shadowcommand_move or aiarena_shadowcommand_register.

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?

It provides explicit usage context by explaining that a seated player token reveals your own ranks, while omitting it yields a public spectator view with ranks hidden. This tells an agent exactly when to supply a player_token, though it doesn't mention alternative tools or explicit exclusion criteria. Clear enough for the intended call pattern.

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