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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds genuinely new context about the public/no-membership access boundary. It also discloses what each lookup returns (roster, captain, colours, recent matches; status, entrants, bracket), which is real behavioral detail. It does not cover pagination or result limits.

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-loaded statement of purpose and access scope, followed by a scannable per-value parameter list where every line maps a branch to its input and output summary. Tight and well organized; only mildly verbose in restating the title's notion of a 'public page' twice.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned for each lookup type, and it fully documents which parameter goes with which branch. Combined with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, an agent has what it needs. The only soft spot is the schema's references to nonexistent 'schedule'/'tournaments' enum values, which the description never addresses.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by mapping each `what` enum value to the exact parameter it consumes and summarizing the returned fields per type. It does not clarify the schema's dangling references ('from what "schedule"' / 'from what "tournaments"') to enum values that do not exist in the list, which is a real ambiguity left unresolved.

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 gives a specific verb (look up) plus the exact resource class (league, team, match, tournament public pages) and pins the distinguishing constraint: 'no membership needed. Read-only.' This separates it from the sibling beleeg_look_up, which an agent can infer is the authenticated counterpart, without opening either schema.

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?

It states when to use this tool (public content viewable by anyone) and enumerates, per `what` value, exactly which param to supply: slug, match_id, tournament_id, league_slug. That is usable routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as 'do not use for private/authenticated data — use beleeg_look_up', which is only implied by 'no membership needed'.

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