get_battle

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.