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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds real context: paper trading only, $100,000 paper money per bot, and the updates_paused/live_now status semantics. It does not state auth requirements or return format, but the safety profile is fully consistent with 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?

It is information-dense and front-loads the league scope, but it is one sprawling sentence with nested parentheticals that is hard to parse. It earns its length in content but loses points for structure and readability.

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 usefully previews the returned fields (last good close, next close, updates_paused, cutoff, next task round) and points to /rules.json for full rules. That covers most of what an agent needs before calling a no-argument info tool, though it omits any sense of response shape or size.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies since no parameter explanation is needed.

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 enumerates the concrete resources covered (league ladders, rules, live status, order menus) and names the specific leagues, so an agent can tell this is the orientation/status tool. It stops short of a crisp verb-and-resource statement and never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling arena_leagues.

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 only implied: the 'first_calls' clause sketches an onboarding sequence (register, sandbox order, then scored order), which hints at when to call this first. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to arena_leagues, arena_round_tasks, or arena_check, which look like overlapping alternatives.

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