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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: live values are volatile snapshots stamped with an explicit tick timestamp, plus an explicit statement of what is not returned. It stops short of describing pagination or history behavior for the include_history path.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the volatility caveat and exclusions packed into the second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does: sides, current round, optional live snapshot, plus explicit exclusions. The picture is nearly complete, with only the history-rounds behavior left unstated.

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%, so the four parameters are already fully documented, and the description adds almost nothing beyond implying the live snapshot is optional via include_live_status. The include_history parameter, which also changes what rounds are returned, is never mentioned in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a battle's status') and enumerates the returned content (sides, current round, optional live snapshot). It reads as distinct from search_battles or get_battle_ranking, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 the tool name and the returned fields, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to siblings like search_battles or get_battle_ranking. The negative scope note (no last-hits lists or equipment payloads) does help an agent rule this tool in or out, which lifts it above pure 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 cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds real behavioral context: the upstream ranking is unbounded, results are capped locally, and the `truncated` field signals whether more rows exist. That truncation contract is exactly what an agent needs and is not derivable from annotations or 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the truncation caveat, then the disambiguation. No filler, though the final disambiguation sentence references a tool not present in the sibling list, slightly diluting its payoff.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the `truncated` return field and the local cap, and it covers the ranking axes. It omits return row shape and credential/player_context handling, so it is strong but not fully complete for a 6-param tool.

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 enums document side/metric/entity_type, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description loosely restates the metric and entity-type options ("damage or points for players, countries, or military units") but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get a battle leaderboard) plus the ranking dimensions (damage/points; players/countries/military units) and explicitly separates itself from the global wealth ranking. An agent can pick it against the sibling get_battle/search_battles without reading the 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 clear context for the call (battle ranking) and rules out a plausible look-alike (the deferred global wealth ranking). It does not state when to prefer it over siblings like get_battle or search_battles, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: recipe inputs appear only when a validated local catalog exists, and they reflect configured requirements rather than current stock. That kind of conditional-availability disclosure is not derivable from the schema. It stops short of covering error handling or credential 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveat, with no filler. The second sentence is dense but each clause carries real information about return behavior.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so: the four detail categories plus the conditional recipe-input caveat. Combined with 100% schema coverage for inputs, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect signal ('where it sits' hinting at region context, 'normalized to a fraction' clarifying the bonus format) rather than parameter-level guidance.

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 and resource ('Get one company's details') and enumerates the actual payload (production, location, workforce, production bonus). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts itself with the plausible sibling get_player_companies, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 'one company's details' versus the list-style siblings, but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of when to prefer get_player_companies or region/country tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: name matching is exact and case-insensitive, and the result is 'a current snapshot only' (no history). It does not describe pagination or response shape, but for a read-only tool this is solid added value.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the matching rule and the sibling exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, 5-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral pieces (exact case-insensitive matching, snapshot-only, war exclusion). It does not enumerate what facts are returned, but with no output schema and a well-annotated read operation, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by specifying that names are matched exactly and case-insensitively, which clarifies the country_name parameter's matching behavior, and reinforces that regions are optional (include_regions). That justifies a bump above baseline.

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 (get) and resource (country overview), and explicitly scopes it to 'selected verified facts about a country plus, optionally, its regions.' It names the sibling it excludes (get_country_wars), so an agent can differentiate. The only weakness is that 'selected verified facts' leaves the actual content of the payload undefined.

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 exclusion and alternative: 'It does not report war relationships — use get_country_wars for those.' That is real routing guidance. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over other siblings like get_region or get_company_overview, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, open-world safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the data source (war relationship field), snapshot-in-time semantics, and the interpretation trap of empty results. Return format and pagination are not described, but no output schema exists to cover that.

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, no filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the important caveat placed last. Every clause carries 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 five-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (war list plus active battles) and the limits of that data. It does not explain how country_id vs country_name are resolved or the default/limit behavior, though the schema covers those.

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%, so the schema already documents country_id, country_name, limit_battles, player_context, and include_active_battles with constraints. The description only indirectly hints at the battle-listing behavior and adds no syntax or format 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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and two concrete resources (war relationships and active battles) scoped to a single country. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_battles and get_battle, which operate on battles rather than a country's war list.

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?

Explicitly frames when the tool applies ('current snapshot from the country's war relationship field') and when it does not ('not a war-history or treaty report'), plus a caveat that an empty result is not proof of no historical battles. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling for historical war data.

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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the result is a global quote rather than an order book or average, but says nothing about freshness/latency, rate limits, or credential 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 with zero waste; the core scope statement is front-loaded and the disambiguation follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the returned value represents (a latest global quoted price for one item). It stops short of describing freshness or handling of unknown item codes, but nothing critical to invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: item_code is documented with examples ('iron', 'bread') and player_context explains the credential shape, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies the single-item constraint ('for one item') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 latest global quoted price') and immediately bounds the scope ('single price snapshot for one item'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling search_market, which suggests a broader search/list operation.

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 description clarifies what the tool is not (not an order book, not a market average), which implies usage boundaries, but it never names an alternative tool or states the condition under which it should be chosen over search_market or search_events. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the ambiguity-resolution behavior for usernames and the explicit exclusion of private inventory, balance, and session-only data, which tells the agent what it will not get back.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the identifier guidance and the exclusion note. Each sentence carries distinct information (what it returns, how to identify the player, what is omitted).

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return scope and its exclusions, and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain: it does not say what happens when no identifier is supplied despite zero required parameters, and the fields projection is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the 'prefer this over a name' note on user_id that the description largely repeats. The only semantic addition is the disambiguation behavior for username, which is behavioral rather than parameter-level, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 and resource ('Get a player's public profile and selected public stats') and scopes it with a negative statement about private inventory, balance, and session-only data. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary against get_player_companies on its own, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear operative guidance: prefer the WarEra user ID when available, and expect username resolution to require an exact, unambiguous match with a disambiguation follow-up otherwise. It stops short of stating when to reach for this tool versus search_events or the overview tools, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the aggregation benefit and that bonus fetching is optional, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when the user is not found.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope exclusion last. Every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and the optional bonus, and the player_context parameter documents the per-request credential requirement. Minor gap: no mention of paging semantics or result ordering, though the schema covers limit/offset bounds.

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%, so limit/offset/user_id/username/include_bonus/player_context are all documented in the schema. The description only echoes the optional production bonus, adding no format or precedence guidance (e.g., user_id vs username) beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List the companies a player owns') and enumerates the returned fields (product, location, workforce, production bonus). The negative clause 'not a country-wide company directory' separates it from directory-style lookups such as get_country_overview.

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 a clear usage trigger ('answers ownership questions in one call instead of many company lookups') and a when-not condition ('not a country-wide company directory'). It never names the specific sibling to use instead, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: ambiguous name matches are rejected and reported rather than guessed, which is important error semantics an agent must anticipate.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the ambiguity caveat immediately after. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and the ambiguity and no-recommendation caveats cover the main failure modes. It does not say what the ambiguity-rejection response looks like or what 'deposit' contains, minor gaps for a single-entity read.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the preference for region_id. The description reinforces id-or-exact-name and the optional country resolution but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (Get) and resource (region) and enumerates the returned fields: population, development, climate, deposit, and optionally country. No sibling tool in the list touches regions, so the scope is unambiguous without further differentiation.

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?

Tells the agent it can look up by id or exact name and explains the ambiguity handling that governs name lookups. It also states a when-not ("does not recommend where to build"), though it names no alternative tool for that need, leaving the agent to infer the right sibling.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: offers are filtered locally on the first upstream page, meaning results are a bounded subset rather than an exhaustive market scan. It also draws a clear scope line at wage facts only. It does not mention rate limits or return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the two constraints an agent most needs. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 five-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the primary return (wage benchmark plus offers) and the important caveat that offer filtering is local to one upstream page. It could say more about what the wage benchmark contains or how the offer set is ordered, but nothing essential to a correct call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, item_code, region_id, player_context and minimum_net_wage are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the loose notion of 'one item' and 'matching offers', which does not extend parameter meaning. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get the wage benchmark for one item') plus the accompanying payload (matching work offers). This clearly separates it from price-oriented siblings like get_market_price and search_market, though it never names an alternative 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?

The description implies usage through scope boundaries ('reports wage facts only and does not assess eligibility or suitability'), which tells the agent what this tool is not for. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use condition or pointer to a sibling when the agent wants prices or eligibility rather than wages.

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, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: unfiltered requests return the first upstream page with no guaranteed ordering, and each side carries a human-readable country name plus id. It does not cover rate limits or page-size behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the ordering caveat, then the sibling routing hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Without an output schema, the description usefully discloses that each side includes a country name and id, and it warns about pagination/ordering. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, though it does not explain the meaning of a 'side' or how cursor iteration terminates.

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%, so the limit, cursor, is_active, and country_id parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List battles') plus the two filters that define its scope (country, active state). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_battle_ranking, so an agent can route correctly 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 both a when-to-use condition ('optionally filtered by country and active state') and an explicit alternative ('For a battle leaderboard use get_battle_ranking'). It also states an operational caveat — unfiltered results are the first upstream page with non-guaranteed ordering — that guides how the caller should present 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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent safety): it discloses the local-filter-on-one-page behavior, the resulting sparse-page failure mode, the incompleteness of history, and that event summaries are untrusted third-party text. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the two most important caveats (local filtering, untrusted text). No filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all parameters, so remaining burden is behavioral. The description addresses pagination filtering quirks, history limits, and untrusted content well; cursor semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable since there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, country_id, event_types, and player_context. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a bounded page of recent world events') and names the two filter axes (country, event type). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_battles or get_country_wars, which cover different domains.

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 description makes clear this is for recent, bounded, page-based event retrieval rather than complete history, and warns that filtering happens post-fetch. It does not name an alternative sibling for fuller event coverage, but the scope constraint effectively tells the agent when this tool is and isn't appropriate.

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/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it discloses that only top visible orders are returned, that this is not guaranteed liquidity or a full-market average, and that order owners are omitted. It does not cover rate limits or credential scoping beyond what the schema says.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then immediately the critical data limitations. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what the data represents and its limitations well. Missing only explicit routing guidance to sibling price tools, which would round it out.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal meaning ('for one item', 'estimating depth for one side') that reinforces the item_code and depth_quantity semantics, but the schema already documents each parameter including the single-side depth constraint.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('visible buy/sell order book for one item'), with the depth-estimation capability noted. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_market_price and get_work_market by the 'order book' framing, though it never names or contrasts those siblings 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?

The description implies a read-only market-inspection use case but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools (e.g., get_market_price for a single price). The caveats about data scope hint at the intended usage context without stating it.

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