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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: 'Parallel-safe: yes. Upstream cost: 0.' That is real value for an orchestrator deciding whether to fan out. It does not describe the response payload's shape, though the presence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 purpose followed by labeled sections and scannable bullets; nothing is padded. Minor waste in re-listing the job enum values that the schema already enumerates, which lengthens the guidance block without adding meaning.

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 zero-required-parameter discovery tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies the routing decision, the cost/model of the call, and an example. What's missing is only a hint at catalog size or response contents, which the output schema covers.

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% and both enums (job, game) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description repeats the job enum values verbatim and supplies one example invocation, but adds no filtering semantics beyond the schema — e.g. how `q` matches or how job and game filters combine.

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 first line states a specific resource — a curated catalog of tools, games, jobs and builder recipes — which is clearly a discovery/inventory capability rather than an action on a game entity. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like call_api (raw OpenAPI) and the domain tools (standings, player_form), which the description itself names.

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?

Explicit three-part guidance: 'When to use' lists concrete triggers (session start, 'what can you do?', mapping screens to tools), 'Prefer over' names the inferior alternatives (guessing from memory, raw OpenAPI via call_api), and 'Do not use when' carves out the case where the agent already knows the tool and IDs.

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