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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the response (points by source, rank, qualification, VORD estimate), but 'VORD' is unexplained, and nothing is said about season scoping behavior or data freshness despite an output schema being present.

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 tight sentences with the returned fields front-loaded and a concrete example query second. Nothing is wasted, though the fragmentary noun-phrase opening reads slightly awkwardly without an explicit verb.

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 simple read-only lookup with a 2-parameter fully documented schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose and expected contents adequately. No critical information an agent would need before calling is missing.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented, including the address pattern and the season_id default. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (season points) and enumerates the returned facets: points by source, rank, qualification status, and VORD estimate. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, but the scope is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_leaderboard or get_season.

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?

The quoted example question ("What's my rank in the season?") implies the usage context, which is helpful. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_leaderboard, get_season, or get_referrals, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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