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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns career aggregates, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response shape, though the schema covers cursor/limit parameters.

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. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output aggregates, and the second covers filtering. There is no filler or redundant detail, and every clause adds 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 read-only listing tool, the description covers the main return content (career aggregates) and filtering. However, it omits mention of pagination through limit/cursor, and without an output schema, an agent might not know the exact response structure (whether it's a flat list or wrapped). The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping three key filters to parameters: name (q), promotion (org), and minimum fights (min_fights). It uses the domain term 'promotion' to clarify the org enum. However, the pagination parameters limit and cursor are not mentioned in the description, leaving them to 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 clearly states this is 'The judge directory' with specific career aggregates (cards turned in, rounds scored, 10-8s, split cards, lone dissents). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_judge_scorecards, which focuses on individual scorecards, and from general search tools. The resource and scope are specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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 implies usage by describing the directory and filters ('Filter by name, promotion or a minimum number of fights'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_judge_scorecards or search. There are no when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

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