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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/non-destructive, and the description adds operationally useful facts beyond them: parallel-safe yes, upstream cost 2–4, and the Dota-specific caveat that a partial roster may be returned due to an API gap. That caveat in particular prevents an agent from misreading an incomplete response as a failure.

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 one-line definition followed by labeled bullets is easy to scan, and the example is placed last where it belongs. Minor waste: the slug/teamId preference phrasing repeats the schema verbatim, and the example duplicates the schema's existing examples field.

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?

Complete for a 6-parameter composite card with an output schema: the description covers scope, routing, cost, concurrency, payload weight via view, and the known data-quality gap. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing, and return-value documentation is rightly left to the output schema.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents game enum, slug/teamId preference per game, view, recentLimit bounds, and includeFormer. The description's "Prefer slug for lol/cod; teamId for cs2" and its example largely restate what the schema already says, though it does usefully flag that slug/teamId are an either/or pair.

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 concrete resource and its payload contents: "Team/org card: identity, roster, recent matches, and form/trends/radar when available." This clearly separates it from player_profile, event_card, and the CS2 stat-table siblings, which an agent can distinguish 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?

Explicit when-to-use bullets (team page, "who is on this roster?"), an explicit preference rule over composing roster + matches + detail via call_api, and explicit exclusions routing UFC to player_profile and unknown names to resolve_entity. Both the positive and negative paths are named.

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