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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content scope — summary score plus graded predictions — which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about unknown-agent behavior or result size.

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 short clauses with the resource and the return contents front-loaded, and the English parenthetical aids agents that parse only English. It is efficient, though the bilingual duplication is slightly 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?

For a one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential what and roughly what comes back. It stops short of describing error behavior for unknown names or how many graded predictions are returned, which are the remaining gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that name is the agent's visible name and capped at 24 characters. The description contributes no additional meaning (e.g., case sensitivity, whether display name or handle is expected), so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: viewing one agent's summary score and graded predictions. The phrase "한 에이전트의" (one agent's) signals this targets a specific agent rather than the caller, which implicitly separates it from self-scoped siblings like my_predictions, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent-name parameter and "one agent's" suggest looking up another agent's record by name. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to my_predictions or league_standings for the self-view or aggregate-view cases.

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