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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail - 'when published' implies unpublished augments may return no data - but says nothing about return shape, error behavior, or localization fallback.

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 compact sentences with no padding; the returned-attribute list is front-loaded and the input-form note follows. Slightly list-heavy phrasing rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 at least enumerates the returned fields, which helps. However, with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no explanation of 'locale' or of what happens for unpublished augments, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the 'augment' parameter accepts either a localized name or an id, which is real added value, but the 'locale' parameter is never explained despite localization being the theme of the sentence.

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 names the specific resource (augment) and enumerates the returned attributes: description, rarity, availability and statistics. It's a clear lookup/retrieval purpose, though it is phrased as a noun list rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_champion_build or get_tier_list.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The only usage hint is 'Accepts localized names or ids', which addresses input form rather than selection context.

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