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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds a genuinely useful caveat the annotations cannot convey: rankings use each player's current Desk level, not the level at the time of the match, which materially affects how results should be interpreted.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the computation and its temporal caveat, the second defines invocation triggers. Front-loaded with the core definition and free of filler.

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, ambiguity remains about the return shape – whether it is a ranked list with per-match scores, how many matches are returned, or how tie-breaking works. Otherwise the description plus the fully covered schema give an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 team, asked, season, and includeAllSeasons are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds the conceptual basis of the score (current Desk level, not historical) but contributes nothing about parameter behavior, and the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: rank a team's recorded matches by lineup strength derived from current Desk levels. It implicitly distinguishes itself from roster-level siblings (compute_roster_strength, compute_aggregate) via the 'per match' framing, but never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

It states concrete invocation triggers – 'which match had the strongest or weakest lineup' and 'how a team's line strength moved' – which map directly onto likely user phrasings. It offers no explicit when-not or named alternative, so routing against compute_roster_strength 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.