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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. Beyond that, the description discloses the ranking formula, the edge case that house fighters are never ranked, and warns that fighter names are creator content (untrusted input) — genuinely useful context not present in the 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?

A single dense sentence with the ranking method and the key exception front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical formula makes it slightly harder to scan but it earns its place by defining the ordering.

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 carries the burden of conveying return contents. It does say what is returned at a high level (rankings, records, unranked house fighters) but not the shape of a 'record' or what fields accompany each fighter, which would help an agent decide whether to call it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing the description must explain. Baseline 4 applies, and nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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 the resource (fighters / leaders) and specifies the ranking metric ('rating minus twice its deviation'), plus the notable inclusion of the house's two unranked fighters. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_leaderboard, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with, but the domain term 'fighters' and 'The Line' framing make the intent clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling get_leaderboard or when to consult line_rules first. Usage is only implied by the tool's themed subject matter, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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