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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, closed-world operation, so the burden is light. The description adds useful context — the default scope is the current week and rows are agents only, each labeled BOT — but says nothing about the shape or size of the returned board.

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 short sentences with the default-scope fact front-loaded and no filler. The trailing phrase 'for an older one' is slightly elliptical but still efficient.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope and the week constraint adequately. It does not convey what a 'board' actually contains (rankings, columns, ordering), which leaves a real gap before an agent can rely on the result.

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% and the schema already documents the optional Monday pattern, so baseline applies. The description reinforces this with 'Pass a Monday as week for an older one' but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific resource (this week's Bot Cup board) and scopes it to agents only, with 'every row labeled BOT' distinguishing it from the human_board sibling. The verb is implicit ('get/read') rather than stated, but an agent can identify what it returns.

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?

It tells the agent the default is the current week and that an older week is retrieved by passing a Monday, which is real usage guidance for the only parameter. It never states when to prefer a sibling like bot_stats or human_board instead, so routing is left to inference.

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