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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context by noting it's the 'Clash Royale official API' and that it returns trophy counts and member totals. It does not contradict annotations and adds behavioral context beyond them.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and API source, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and return value.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not fully cover the parameter space: pagination parameters (after, before, limit) are completely unaddressed. The tool has 8 optional parameters, and the description only hints at the main filters. For a search tool, pagination is significant, so completeness is moderate.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It names five of eight parameters (name, locationId, minMembers, maxMembers, minScore) but omits pagination parameters (after, before, limit). This provides partial help but leaves meaningful gaps, so it only partially compensates.

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 clearly identifies the action ('search clans') and the resource ('clans'), with a specific list of filters (name, locationId, min/max members, min score). It distinguishes this search tool from siblings like 'clan' (specific clan lookup) and 'rankings_clans' (rankings), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching clans by name, location, membership size, or score. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use 'clan' for direct tag lookup), so it stops short of a full usage guideline.

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