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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the cross-locale search scope, which is modest added context, but it does not clarify result count, ranking, or how the stated all-locale search interacts with the locale parameter.

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 compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the ambiguity it introduces about locales slightly undercuts its efficiency.

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?

For a simple annotated read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but thin: with 0% parameter documentation it should at least explain limit behavior and the locale default. Nothing an agent needs to avoid a wrong call is stated, but nothing critical is missing either.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does almost none of it: query semantics, the limit default/max of 10/30, and the locale default of "en" are all left unexplained. The phrase "across all site locales" even muddies what the locale parameter does.

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 ("Search") and the exact resource set (champion and augment names, aliases, augment descriptions), plus a scope qualifier. It is clearly a discovery/lookup tool, distinguishable in kind from the get_* siblings, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling getters it naturally feeds into (e.g., find a name here, then call get_augment or get_champion_build). Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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