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

Adds important behavior beyond the annotations: a Desk Pass is required, and without it the call returns only the free part plus a deskPass message to relay to the user. It also describes the substance of the return (ranked reads with evidence), while the annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then covers usage, parameters, scope exclusions, and the Desk Pass caveat in compact sentences. Every sentence adds useful information, with no 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains what the scout contains (ranked reads and evidence) and what happens without a Desk Pass. That is enough for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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. The description adds a meaningful constraint by saying `team` must be a single team the Desk covers and may be passed by name or Desk page link; `asked` remains documented mainly in the schema.

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: writes a scout for one covered team, including ranked reads and evidence. It also distinguishes the single-team scope from a whole-club request, so an agent can tell when this tool is the right one.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use cases (a scout, a team breakdown, how to beat a named team) and a when-not case (never for a whole club). It does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead when the request is out of scope, which keeps it short of a 5.

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