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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: the result is an unfiltered whole census rather than a slice, and it discloses the return dimensions, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the definition before the call trigger and the no-argument rationale. Mild redundancy between sentence one and sentence two, which both re-list leagues, levels and areas.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation triggers, and the shape of what comes back. The only real gap is the misleading claim about taking no arguments, which conflicts with the schema's "asked" field.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description actively undercuts the schema by declaring "It takes no arguments" while the schema defines an optional "asked" parameter that must be passed verbatim when present. An agent trusting the prose would omit a field the schema explicitly instructs it to supply.

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 a specific resource and enumerates exactly what the tool reports (areas, leagues, levels, clubs, teams, seasons) plus the meta-question it answers. Its nature as a whole-census capability probe is distinct from the per-entity query_* siblings, though no sibling is named for contrast.

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?

"Call it whenever someone asks what you can look up, what data you have, or which leagues, levels or areas are covered" gives concrete trigger conditions an agent can pattern-match. There is no explicit exclusion or alternative named (e.g., read_docs), which keeps it below a 5.

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