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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that totals are computed from records (not hardcoded) and that each title includes a verification source. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand data provenance and reliability.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists the returned fields and the key behavioral note about totals and sources without any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no required parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return content. It lists the fields included per title and clarifies how totals are derived. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a read-only list of titles this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 50%: the 'competition' parameter has a description, and 'sport' has an enum and default. The description does not add further meaning about how filtering works or what sport values imply. Since coverage is moderate and the tool is simple, the description's lack of parameter elaboration is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 verb and resource: it returns the complete honours list of River Plate, including details like year, opponent, result, venue, coach, and source. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_matches or get_standings, which cover different data types. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to retrieve River Plate's titles), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the sibling set, an agent can infer that this is the tool for honours rather than matches or players, but the guidance is not explicit.

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