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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is numeric/aggregate ('in numbers') across a fixed year and optional promotion, which is useful, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or edge-case behavior.

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 one front-loaded sentence that starts with the core scope ('One calendar year... in numbers') and then lists specific stats. The list is long, but each item helps differentiate the tool from other get_* siblings, so it is not idle padding.

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 2-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid idea of what the caller will get: a numeric year-in-review breakdown with events, finishes, divisions, upsets, fighters, countries, and judges. It still leaves the exact output structure implicit, but an agent can select and call it confidently.

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 year and org are already well documented. The description restates the year and promotion concepts but adds no new type, range, format, or enum semantics beyond the schema, 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 makes clear that this tool returns a calendar-year aggregate summary for one promotion or all promotions, and the list of stats distinguishes it from siblings like get_leaderboard, get_record_book, or get_champions. It lacks an explicit main verb in the body, though the title supplies 'get', so it is not quite 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?

The phrase 'one calendar year' and 'promotion (or all covered promotions)' gives useful temporal and scoping context, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling stat tools or state when-not-to-use alternatives, leaving routing mostly implied.

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