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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that this tool is a bounded enumeration of supported sections rather than a free-form search, and that results carry display names alongside slugs. It does not state whether the set is fixed/static, which would be the last useful detail.

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 purpose before the slug list, and nothing is filler. The inline enumeration of nine slugs is slightly verbose given an output schema already exists, but it is reference data that saves a round trip, so it mostly earns its place.

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 zero-param reference tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned (slugs plus display names) and how to consume it downstream; no further detail is needed to call it correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The description instead documents the value domain (the slug vocabulary) that parameters of downstream tools must draw from, which is the relevant semantic content here.

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 ("Lists the game sections the gosugamers tools support") and immediately enumerates the exact slugs, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It is unmistakably a reference/lookup tool, not a search or match tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use a returned slug as the `game` argument of gosugamers_matches, gosugamers_results, gosugamers_match and gosugamers_tournament, which is a concrete routing instruction. It does not mention the other gosugamers siblings that likely also take a game slug (e.g. gosugamers_tournaments, gosugamers_team_results, gosugamers_rankings), so coverage of alternatives is partial rather than exhaustive.

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