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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Calling it a 'reference' implies a non-mutating read, and the description usefully discloses the branching behavior of the theater parameter. It says nothing about return shape, size, or whether the whole document is returned, which is the main behavioral question for a reference tool.

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 sentences with no filler, and the primary content is front-loaded before the theater note. The terminology is dense ('hello()/tick()') but appropriate for its audience and it avoids restating the tool name.

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 documentation tool this is roughly sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description never says what form the reference arrives in (single document, sections, or length). An agent cannot tell whether calling it is cheap or whether it should reach for a narrower sibling first.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is already documented in the schema, including the default. The description restates the 'sub' branch almost verbatim, adding the term 'Silent Service' but little meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific resource: a reference document covering hello()/tick() observation and order schemas, units, damage, and winning conditions. That is concrete enough for an agent to know it is a documentation-lookup tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_rules, get_started, or get_starter_sub, which plausibly return overlapping documentation.

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: an agent is expected to infer it should call this when it needs the controller API contract. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and none of the adjacent documentation tools (get_rules, get_started, get_starter, get_starter_sub) are named as alternatives or complements.

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