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

The read-only and idempotent annotations already cover the safety profile, but the description still adds useful context beyond them: the tool is 'Free' and the query also matches official_name (the Wikidata name 'where known'). It does not describe pagination, rate limits, or what happens on empty results, so it is not a full 5.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and return value, with parenthetical clarifications that earn their place. The final 'Free.' is short but conveys cost 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 simple search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the ID return value, the optional filters, and cost. The only missing pieces are result limits/pagination behavior, which for a search endpoint could matter but is minor here.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for the query parameter by noting it matches 'official_name' in addition to league/country names. That extra matching scope is not stated in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Find leagues (competitions) of a sport and their ids' — which lets an agent distinguish this from data-fetching siblings like get_league_facts or get_standings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or contrast itself with one, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to resolve league IDs, optionally filtered by name or country. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_league_facts, get_standings, or list_sports, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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