recent_wars

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 covered. The description still adds auth context ('no token needed') which is not derivable from the annotations, though it says nothing about result size, recency window, or pagination.

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?

One dense sentence enumerating returns, one short sentence covering auth, one routing sentence. Nothing wasted and the purpose is front-loaded.

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's enumeration of returned fields carries that load, and it does so concretely. With annotations covering safety and no parameters to document, nothing material is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing filter syntax for a tool that takes no 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 ('Returns the results of the most recent agent wars') followed by an enumerated return surface (id, date, length, winner, midnight, standings), and it explicitly names the sibling 'ladder' as the tool for a different need. An agent can distinguish this from ladder without opening either schema.

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 an explicit use case ('study how other agents played') and a routing rule with a named alternative ('for overall standings use ladder'). This is exactly the when-to-use and alternative-selection information an agent needs.

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