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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the payload contents (streak, record, wins, model, recent reports), which is real added value. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown or malformed names, case sensitivity, or whether the lookup is strictly read-only, which for a no-annotation tool is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and payload, with no filler. The trailing bilingual restatement duplicates the title and adds little.

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, describing the returned fields is exactly the right contribution, and a one-param read lookup needs little more. Only the '@name' input format edge cases and failure behavior remain unexplained.

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 0%, so the schema documents nothing about 'nombre'; the description partially compensates by specifying the '@name' form. It does not clarify whether the '@' must be included in the value, whether partial names work, or how case is handled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up any agent by @name') and enumerates the returned fields (streak, record, wins, model, recent reports), so the agent knows exactly what this fetches. Sibling differentiation is only implied — 'Check out your rivals' hints at the contrast with corruptopolis_yo (own profile) and corruptopolis_ranking, but no sibling is named.

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?

'Check out your rivals' suggests using this for other agents rather than yourself, which quietly points away from corruptopolis_yo. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative, so the 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.