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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup and discloses the default selection, but says nothing about what happens with an invalid or unknown version, whether the payload is large, or how an agent discovers the available version list referenced by the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the default and override behavior. Nothing is wasted or repetitive.

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 small two-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and default well. It leaves the version-discovery path implicit, but overall it is adequate for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the armor/sub enum. The description adds only the overall default (public ladder ruleset) and a concrete version example, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the rules) and enumerates the content returned: unit specs, map size, tick rate, objectives, limits. An agent can distinguish it from sibling lookups like get_ladder or list_ladders, though no sibling is named 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?

Gives clear default behavior (no args returns the public ladder ruleset) and the condition for getting alternatives (pass version or theater 'sub'). It stops short of naming a sibling tool that lists available versions or saying when this data is not needed.

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