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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real operational context: a 2-credit cost and the default two-year activity window. It does not discuss pagination or what happens when limit exceeds available teams, but the cost disclosure is meaningful value beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the use case and ending with cost, with no filler wording. Slightly dense punctuation (colon plus comma list) costs a little readability.

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?

Given six parameters, an existing output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: scope, sort order, defaults, and cost. The only gap is the semantics of 'limit' and how format interacts with league, which are minor for a read-only ranked-list tool.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: 'in one format' clarifies format is single-valued, 'international sides and franchises' maps to team_type, 'men's or women's' maps to gender, and the two-year default explains active_since. Only 'limit' (1-300) is left entirely to the schema, keeping this just under a 5.

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 metric ('team ratings (Elo)') and states the output ordering ('best first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from stats-oriented siblings like get_player_stats or get_leaders. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'in one format' implies this is a single-format query and the defaults (last two years, active teams) are stated, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling alternative is named for cases where the agent wants per-player or per-match data.

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