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 disclose meaningful behaviors: original wire types, JSON-encoded strings, unknown-ID error strings, oversized-result refusal, one logical GET request, no continuation-page auto-fetching, and local array limits. Some boilerplate is generic and ambiguous, but overall transparency is strong.

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 over-long and contains repetitive statements about oversized results, vague boilerplate about declared filters, and grammatical issues. The key information is buried under generic sentences that do not clearly apply to this single-parameter tool.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers many important aspects: read behavior, possible ID variants, error handling, request method, pagination stance, and response-size limits. It remains somewhat unclear about the exact successful response shape, but it is reasonably complete for a simple endpoint.

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 explain the sole 'id' parameter. It does: the id is a queue transaction ID, and either the captured or opponent's queue ID can return the same battle. That adds real meaning beyond the schema's type/minLength, though no format example is given.

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 opening sentence 'Read a battle result by explicit queue transaction ID' clearly names a specific verb, resource, and key. The follow-up sentence about captured opponent queue IDs adds useful nuance but is grammatically awkward, and no sibling tool is named for 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?

The description states that an explicit queue transaction ID is required, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like battle_queue or battle_status. Statements about 'required inputs reflect tool policy' and filters being forwarded are vague and do not help an agent decide.

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