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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description adds substantial behavior: the weekly reset cadence, that badges never expire, that figures are measured from an append-only XP journal and graded calls ('never invented'), and that public rank requires opt-in. This is well beyond what the annotations convey.

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-loaded with the key benefit and scoping ('FREE — YOUR SEASON STANDING'), and most sentences carry information. The all-caps emphasis and long single paragraph add some noise, but little is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be documented, yet the description still covers cadence, measurement source, opt-in gating, and badge permanence. Combined with the 1-param schema, the only real omission is payer-address format.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'payer' parameter, so the schema carries no meaning. The description compensates partially by clarifying it is a payer address and that 'no payment is required', but it gives no format or example, leaving a real gap.

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+resource ('names the live season key, when it started and when it ends, and YOUR season facts') and enumerates the exact outputs: season XP, calls locked, correct resolutions, accuracy, trailing streak. It implicitly separates itself from tollbridge_arena_leaderboard by noting the public rank only appears for opted-in wallets.

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 description explains the opt-in prerequisite and points to POST /v1/arena/opt-in, which is useful context, but it never explicitly says when to call this instead of tollbridge_arena_leaderboard or tollbridge_arena_profile. Usage is implied ('YOUR season standing') rather than routed.

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