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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'refreshed hourly' indicates data freshness, and 'peak rating and fights rated' suggests content composition. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them, earning a strong score.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds relevant details via an em-dash. There is no fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 read-only tool with two parameters, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly: it names the board, the single-promotion scope, and hints at content. It does not describe the return format, but with no output schema, some ambiguity remains. However, the combination of schema (enums, constraints) and description is adequate for most agent scenarios.

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% (only org has a minimal description). The tool description adds context for the org parameter by saying 'for one promotion', but it does not explain the limit parameter at all. Given the low-to-moderate coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not address the optional limit or its purpose. The description adds marginal value over the schema for org but leaves limit undocumented.

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 resource (Power Index board), the scope (for one promotion), and gives specifics (our own rating engine, refreshed hourly, peak rating, fights rated). It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_rankings or get_event_card. The purpose is clear but not contrasted.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools or conditions for selection. The only contextual hint is 'for one promotion', which implies the org parameter is required, but no exclusion criteria or alternatives are noted. This leaves the agent to infer usage.

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