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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses the return format (download link and attachable file), confirms no key/parameter is needed, and explains that the tool does not parse filled-in sheets—the agent must handle that. This adds significant behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct value: first defines the deliverable, second gives usage triggers, third covers behavioral notes. It is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description covers all necessary aspects: the deliverable, usage scenarios, return format, and follow-up instructions. The presence of an output schema means return value details are outside the description's scope, but the description still goes beyond expectations.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivial. The description explicitly states 'Needs no key,' reinforcing that no input is required and eliminating any ambiguity about invocation.

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 clearly states that the tool returns a blank Excel workbook template for the player list, specifying the columns and formatting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_export or get_pdf by naming the specific deliverable and its structure.

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 explicitly states when to offer this tool: when the organiser has no list ready, asks how to send players, or prefers spreadsheets. It also directs the agent to parse a filled-in sheet itself and use add_players, providing clear alternation guidance.

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