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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the cross-tool dependency on fotmob_fifa_ranking_periods, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or the shape/scope of returned rows. Given annotations carry the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and scoping dependency with no wasted words.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the essential cross-tool prerequisite, leaving it nearly complete for a two-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (gender, period_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the gender choice and the period dependency but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('FotMob's men's or women's national-team ranking rows'), and it implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fotmob_fifa_ranking_periods by noting it returns rows rather than periods. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the sibling as an alternative.

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?

It ties usage to a prerequisite: the period must come from fotmob_fifa_ranking_periods, which tells the agent the correct call order. There are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but for a narrow data-fetch tool the context is sufficient.

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