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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully lists the report contents (archetype, monthly closeness, ranking, share link), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state what happens if the campaign is unfinished or whether authentication is required.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful information about the report contents. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant for an agent but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the returned report components. The main remaining gap is error behavior for an unfinished game, which is relevant because the tool is scoped to a 'finished campaign'.

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 100% for the single required 'partida' parameter, so the schema already provides its meaning. The description does not add format, validation, or example details beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific resource (memetic report) and its scope (after a finished campaign), listing archetype, month-by-month accuracy, and ranking. It distinguishes itself from action/start/join siblings by being a post-game summary, though it does not explicitly contrast with corruptopolis_ranking.

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?

Usage is implied by 'after a finished campaign', which gives a clear precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not name alternatives such as corruptopolis_ranking for comparison data.

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