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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the 'Sub-second cached' nature, which informs the agent about performance characteristics. It also specifies the exact metrics returned, going beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key behavioral trait ('Sub-second cached') and then lists the specific metrics. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It covers the data source (CS2 utility/flashbang), the performance characteristic (cached), and the return metrics. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the ranking order or whether the output is sorted, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 100%, so the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns a cached leaderboard of CS2 utility and flashbang efficiency, with specific metrics (effective blind duration per flash, enemy blind time, flashes thrown, grenade ADR). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cs2_clutches or leaderboard_aces.

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?

The description implies usage for querying CS2 utility leaderboard data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cs2_team_map_stats or other leaderboard tools. The 'Sub-second cached' hint suggests a performance context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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