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

Annotations already declare readiness and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context: the profile may be private and returns minimal info. This provides value beyond annotation signals without contradiction.

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 sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the verb ('Get') and resource ('player profile + summary stats'), making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and robust schema/annotations/output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, the unique identifier requirement, and the privacy caveat. No gaps.

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 100%, with a thorough description of account_id including how to obtain it and an example. The tool description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves a Dota 2 player's profile and summary stats by Steam Account ID, listing specific fields (name, avatar, MMR, wins/losses, rank, last match). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opendota.matches.detail or opendota.players.matches.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a player's summary stats. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance but mentions privacy (returns minimal info if private), which helps set expectations. No explicit alternatives provided, but clarity compensates.

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