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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely new operational context: no authentication key is required, and results feed a two-step flow into fetch via a result id, which tells the agent how to chain calls.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the key constraint, then the follow-up action. No filler and no repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, auth precondition and next step. The only meaningful gap is the lack of differentiation from find_players for a tool whose purpose is close to it.

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% and the single parameter's own description already explains it takes words like a player name, league or question. The description's 'player, league, guide or answer' phrasing largely restates the schema rather than adding format, syntax or matching-behavior detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and names concrete resource types (player, league, guide, answer) plus the site it searches, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling find_players, which appears to overlap on player lookup, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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 states a clear selecting condition ('Use this when no API key is connected') and a follow-up step ('Then call fetch with a result id'), which is actionable routing guidance. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against sibling find_players, so the alternative-selection picture is incomplete.

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