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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds freshness semantics ('latest weekly') and the returned field set, but says nothing about unknown-slug behavior, error shape, or how often the weekly snapshot rolls over.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned, then lists the payload and closes with the input prerequisite. No filler, and the ordering matches how an agent decides to call it.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields; the single input's origin is also explained. What remains unstated is failure behavior for an invalid or unknown club slug, which matters for a one-required-param lookup.

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% (only a regex pattern is declared), so the description carries the burden and does so: it identifies the parameter as a club slug and names resolve as its source. It does not restate the slug format, but the source hint is the more useful information.

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 (returns one club's latest weekly 442ball Power Rating) and enumerates the payload: rating, band, league rank, attack/defence indices, long-run rating, plus club and league URLs. The 'latest weekly' + 'one club' framing distinguishes it from siblings like rating_history (time series), rankings and league_strength (league-wide).

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?

'Takes the club slug from resolve' gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to the sibling that produces the input. It does not state when to prefer rating_history or compare_clubs instead, so there is clear context but no exclusions.

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