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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond those flags: data is normalized to ranked rows, Dota may NOT_IMPLEMENTED or return weak worldRanking, the call is parallel-safe, and upstream cost is 1–2. No behavior contradicts 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?

Organized into bullets with a one-sentence summary at top, game-specific groupings, operational hints, and an example. Every section earns its place, and the formatting front-loads the most critical routing information.

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 9-parameter, multi-game tool the description covers use cases, exclusions, per-game parameter combinations, an edge case (Dota), parallelism, cost, and gives an example. The only minor omission is guidance for the tennis enum value, so it is not absolutely exhaustive.

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 further by mapping each game to required scope keys (leagueId/tournamentId for LoL, eventId for CS2, division for UFC, etc.) and explaining defaults like omitting scope for CS2 world rankings. This is meaningfully beyond the one-line schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific definition: 'League/event standings or world/division rankings normalized to ranked rows.' It also names concrete use cases (UFC rankings, CS2 world/event standings, CDL standings, LoL league/tournament tables) and explicitly contrasts with team_profile and live_matches, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 provides an explicit 'When to use' list, a 'Prefer over' statement steering agents to this normalized tool over raw call_api, and a 'Do not use when' section naming team_profile and live_matches. It even notes Dota's weak first-class support, giving a conditional usage boundary.

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