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.