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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: Season 1 publishes no ranks, ordering is by settled calls rather than score, and below-bar players are aggregated into `belowBarCount` and never named. That ordering and privacy behavior is not derivable from the annotations or schema and is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results.

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 with little padding, but the opening phrase "Scores with the N behind them" is awkward and delays the point. The Season 1 caveat is front-loaded in second position, which is reasonable, though the em-dash clause adds density without much 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?

An output schema and annotations are present, so return shape and safety need not be spelled out. Still, for a three-parameter paginated tool the description omits pagination behavior and any relation to sibling scoring tools, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies `id` refers to a season; it says nothing about `limit`/`offset` pagination or the maximum page sizes, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in prose.

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 conveys that this returns per-season scores with sample sizes ("Scores with the N behind them for one season"), which is more specific than the title alone. However, it never uses a clear verb+resource framing and gives no signal distinguishing it from near siblings like kellian_get_scoring_record, kellian_get_season_cohort, or kellian_list_leaderboard. The jargon ("N behind them", "evidence — settled calls") leaves the exact payload somewhat ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many other scoring/season/leaderboard tools, and no prerequisites. The only conditional content is the Season 1 quirk, which is a data caveat rather than usage guidance.

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