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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering trait ('ranked') and the discovery dependency, which is modest behavioral context, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result shape beyond ordering.

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 with no filler; the resource and its dependency are stated immediately. It is efficient, though borderline terse for a six-parameter tool.

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 a fully documented schema, an output schema present, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, most burden is carried by structured fields. The description is adequate but leaves the selection rationale versus siblings such as fotmob_player_stats and fotmob_table unstated.

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 every parameter (stat, type, team_id, position, league_id, season_id) is already documented in the schema, including enum-like position values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description names a specific resource ('FotMob ranked player or team statistics') and ties it to a 'discovered league stat,' so an agent knows it returns ranked stat tables rather than raw stat-id discovery. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like fotmob_stats_categories and fotmob_player_stats, though it never explicitly names them.

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 'for a discovered league stat' implies the prerequisite that the stat id must first be obtained from fotmob_stats_categories, which is useful workflow guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use statement and no alternative sibling is named for comparison.

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