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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the ordering rule ('busiest first'), the exact metric set returned, and the note that referee ids are name slugs. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and no filler. The field enumeration is compact and earns its place by substituting for the missing output schema. Slightly list-heavy but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and sort order, and the input schema covers filtering and pagination. Missing only a note on default result set size or whether results are paged beyond the limit/cursor params, which the schema mostly implies.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented including the enum and the 'omit for every covered promotion' default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that filtering is by name or promotion. The slug sentence aids follow-up calls but is not a parameter.

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 referee directory across the covered promotions' states the resource and scope precisely, and the field list (bouts worked, finish rate, etc.) makes clear this is a list endpoint rather than a single lookup. It never names get_referee or list_judges, so the singular/plural sibling distinction is left to inference from the name.

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?

'Filter by name or promotion' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this beats get_referee, and no exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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