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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description adds freshness ('latest weekly snapshot') and the presence of a page URL per club, which the annotations do not convey. Return shape beyond that is left implicit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 discloses the key return elements (clubs plus page URLs) and data vintage. Minor gaps: no note on ordering ties or what happens with an invalid slug, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the params, and it does: it gives the n bounds (1 to 20, default 10) matching the schema and specifies that league is a slug obtained from resolve. The 'undefined' fields are covered adequately without format examples.

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 the top clubs of one league by 442ball Power Rating') plus the snapshot scope. The clause 'There is no list across leagues' and the pointer to resolve distinguish it from league-wide siblings like league_strength and greatest_sides.

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?

Explicitly names resolve as the source of the league slug and rules out cross-league listing, giving real preconditions and one exclusion. It does not contrast against the closest siblings (club_rating, greatest_sides), which is why it falls short of a 5.

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