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 context about the returned data (career aggregates and meta.league baselines), which goes beyond the structured fields. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The main purpose and key aggregates are front-loaded, followed by filter options. Every phrase earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (career aggregates and baselines) and the main filters. It doesn't detail pagination (cursor/limit) but these are standard for list endpoints and the schema provides the parameter names. Overall, an agent can call this correctly with the given information.

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% (only q is described). The description compensates by naming three filters: name, promotion, and minimum fights, which map to q, org, and min_fights. However, it omits limit and cursor, which remain undocumented in both schema and description. Since pagination is a common pattern, this is acceptable but not fully compensating.

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 tool's purpose: a judge directory with specific career aggregates (cards turned in, rounds scored, 10-8s, split cards, lone dissents) and league-wide baselines. It also mentions filtering capabilities. This distinguishes it from single-judge tools like get_judge and scorecard-specific get_judge_scorecards.

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 this is for listing/searching judges rather than retrieving a single judge, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over get_judge or get_judge_scorecards. No explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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