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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds "Public API" (implying no elevated auth) and names the underlying endpoint. However, it says nothing about not-found behavior, error shape, or whether fields may be null, which matters for a single-record fetch with no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the record and the payload contents, then the endpoint for orientation. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields (dates, description, pricing, registration state, location) fills the most important gap for a single-record getter. Missing only edge-case behavior such as invalid or unpublished program ids.

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% and the only parameter carries the digit-pattern and provenance note, so the schema does the work. The description adds only "by id," which repeats rather than extends that meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Full details of one program by id") and enumerates the fields it covers, which cleanly separates it from leagueapps_list_programs (many programs) and leagueapps_get_program_schedule (schedule slice). An agent can pick it without reading the schema.

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 "by id" plus the schema note "programId from a program list" implies the list-first workflow, but the description never says when to prefer this over leagueapps_get_program_schedule or leagueapps_list_current_programs. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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