search_battles

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.