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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the no-membership access model and a per-value summary of what is returned (standings, roster, lineups, bracket), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads purpose and access model, then uses a clean per-enum bullet list. Slightly long, but every bullet carries the required argument plus expected payload, so little 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?

Covers the gaps annotations and schema leave open: access/auth model, the enum-to-parameter mapping, and a sketch of return contents in the absence of an output schema. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already 100%, setting a baseline of 3, but the description earns above baseline by mapping each `what` enum value to its required argument (slug, match_id, tournament_id, league_slug) and describing the content of each result — richer than the schema's terse 'Used with what: ...' notes.

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 ('look up') and resource ('public page') and immediately scopes it with 'what anyone can see on Beleeg — a league, team, match or tournament public page — no membership needed.' This cleanly separates it from the sibling write/admin tools (start_league, start_tournament, send_feedback).

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: public data that requires no membership, with an explicit 'Read-only' framing and the requirement to pick `what` plus the listed slug/id. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for member-visible data, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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