GameBattle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond content listing — no mention of static/cached content, rate limits, or return format. With annotations carrying the burden, a neutral 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two compact, front-loaded fragments with no filler. The Korean/English duplication is a deliberate bilingual convention rather than padding, though it does slightly repeat the same content.

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?

For a 0-param, read-only, annotation-covered tool the description covers what is returned, and no output schema is needed. The main gap is that nothing tells an agent when this tool should be invoked (e.g., for onboarding or general site questions rather than game data).

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; per the baseline for 0-param tools this scores 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters.

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 names the specific resource contents it returns (About GameBattle, FAQ, main page URLs), so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling tools that all deal with games, tournaments, guides, and battle zones. It is not a verb+resource statement, but the noun list is concrete enough to identify the tool's domain.

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?

There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives. However, listing the content types (service intro, FAQ, page URLs) implies the usage: answer general site/FAQ questions rather than querying game or tournament data. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful scoping word, 'public', implying private/unlisted tournaments are not retrievable, but does not mention error behavior for an unknown slug or rate limits.

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?

Two short bilingual sentences with no filler, and the key identifier formats are front-loaded. The title restates the same information, producing mild redundancy, but the body itself is tight.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly. The absence of any return-shape note is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but the operation is simple enough that it does not impede selection or invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents 'slug or page URL', which the description merely repeats. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load with no additional format or validation detail from the description.

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 ('Get one public tournament'), and the parenthetical clarifies that the identifier can be either a slug or a page URL. It is distinguishable from the plural sibling search_tournaments by the singular scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular 'one public tournament' suggests this is for fetching a known entity rather than browsing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer search_tournaments, and no exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious payload contents — channel URLs and active tournament counts — which an agent cannot derive from the empty schema, giving genuine extra context.

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?

Two short parallel sentences (Korean then English) that front-load the primary noun. The bilingual duplication is redundant for a single-language reader but compact enough not to obscure the meaning.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description carries the essential return-value information (games, channel URLs, tournament counts). It stops short of noting ordering, size, or pagination, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless full enumeration, consistent with the empty schema, and does not misrepresent any input.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List games') with the payload spelled out (games, per-game channel URLs, active tournament counts). It distinguishes the tool's content from siblings like search_tournaments or get_site_info by naming what it returns, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with another list tool.

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 absence of parameters implies this is the broad, unfiltered enumeration of games, and the mention of 'active tournament counts' hints at a discovery role. However, no when-to-use statement or alternative (e.g., search_battle_zones, search_tournaments) is named, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The only behavioral addition is the 'latest first' sort order, which is useful but thin; no pagination, result-size, or empty-result behavior is disclosed.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the Korean and English sentences are verbatim duplicates, so roughly half the text is redundant translation rather than added information.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits the default and maximum page size (10/20) and what the returned guides contain, which an agent would want when deciding how to page.

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 50%: the game parameter carries a description (a slug, cross-referencing list_games) but limit is described only by default/min/max constraints. The description adds nothing about either parameter, not even that filtering by a game slug narrows results, so it does not compensate for the 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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ('latest strategy guides from the GameBattle community') plus an ordering hint (최신순/latest). It is not a tautology, but it never contrasts itself with the closest siblings such as list_games or search_battle_zones, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the related list_games or any search_* sibling, nor does it say whether the game filter is required to get meaningful results.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world scope are covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about result set size, ordering, or how the partner/closed dataset is scoped, and it largely restates the title in two languages.

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 two short sentences with no filler and the core resource is front-loaded. The bilingual duplication adds a little redundancy but no real bloat.

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?

For a search/listing tool with no output schema, the description omits anything an agent would want: what the results contain, how region/query interact, what the limit cap means, and how this differs from search_pc_bangs. With three parameters and partial schema coverage, it should do considerably more.

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 description coverage is only 67% and the 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 20) carries no description anywhere, so the description would need to compensate. It contributes zero parameter information, leaving the cap and default semantics undocumented in prose.

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 gives a clear verb ('찾습니다' / Search) and a specific resource ('게임배틀 제휴 PC방 · 게임 매장(배틀존)'), so an agent knows this returns affiliated venue listings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_pc_bangs, which sounds like it covers overlapping territory.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the closely named sibling search_pc_bangs, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint — results are limited to licensed, currently-operating establishments sourced from public data — which excludes closed/unlicensed venues. However, it says nothing about result limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the resource and scope, with no filler. The Korean and English lines are near-duplicates, which is defensible for a bilingual audience but is still mild 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back — and it does: a list of licensed, operating PC bangs filtered by region or name. With four optional, mostly self-documenting parameters and full annotation coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 description coverage is 75% and the schema itself documents query, region, and district with bilingual hints. The description only echoes 'region or name,' leaving district and the limit cap (max 20) unexplained beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb (search/find) and a precise resource (currently-operating, licensed PC bangs in Korea from public data), scoped by region or name. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like search_battle_zones or search_tournaments because the domain entity is explicit, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by region or name,' so an agent can infer the intended lookup pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about which sibling to prefer for related queries. Minimum-viable routing context only.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral fact is the 'public' scope restriction (closed-world, public tournaments only), with no note on result volume, paging or ordering — adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, no filler. Slight redundancy from stating the same content in Korean and English, though this appears to be a deliberate bilingual convention.

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?

For a four-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the filter axes but omits the limit/pagination parameter entirely and says nothing about what a result record contains or how results are ordered. Annotations and the schema carry most of the remaining burden, so this is workable but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 75% and the schema itself documents the game slug, keyword and status enum values, so the description's enumeration of 'keyword, game slug and status' largely restates structured data. It does not mention the limit parameter or any format/syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb (search), resource (tournaments) and a scope qualifier (public), plus the axes it searches on (keyword · game slug · status). It implicitly separates itself from get_tournament (single lookup) and from the unrelated search_battle_zones/search_pc_bangs siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Search public tournaments by keyword, game slug and status" implies when the tool applies (discovering/browsing tournaments), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion such as 'use get_tournament for a single known id', and no stated prerequisites.

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