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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the underlying methodology (Elo from every final game) and, importantly, a cost of 2 credits, which an agent should know before calling.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the purpose leads and the cost caveat is appended as a short, high-value note.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover safety. It just falls short on season format and on how ratings differ from standings, but the core invocation requirements are present.

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 only 50%, with the 'season' parameter undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'as of the end of a season or today' compensates by implying that omitting season yields current ratings, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. It still doesn't specify the accepted season format (e.g. '2023' vs '2023-24'), which is a real remaining 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 the specific resource (team power ratings, Elo-derived from final games) and the temporal framing (end of a season or today, ranked). This clearly separates it from statistical siblings like get_team_stats or get_standings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use for our team power ratings' tells the agent the intended domain, and the mention of 'end of a season or today' implies the two usage modes. However, there are no exclusions or guidance on when to prefer get_standings/get_team_stats instead.

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