battle_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses error behavior for unknown IDs, refusal of oversized results, no auto-fetching of continuation pages, local row/size limits with truncation reporting, and preservation of wire types. This is exceptional transparency for a tool.

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?

The description is long but information-dense, with the purpose front-loaded. However, there is redundancy ('Oversized results are refused without dropping rounds or player data' vs later 'Oversized records are refused without partial fields') and a vague sentence about 'Required inputs reflect tool policy' that could be tightened.

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?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers many operational details (error strings, size limits, wire types, no pagination) that an agent needs. It hints at response contents (details, settings, rewards) but could be more explicit about the overall response structure, though the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it defines the ID as a 'queue transaction ID' and clarifies that either the captured opponent queue ID or the original works. This adds meaning beyond the bare string schema, though it could be more explicit about format.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a battle result by explicit queue transaction ID.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from battle_queue and battle_status by focusing on results and the input type. The added note about captured opponent queue IDs further clarifies scope.

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 (for reading battle results by queue ID) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like battle_status or tournament_battles. It provides no exclusions or conditions for when to use this tool over siblings, leaving selection partly to inference.

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