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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-fetch profile is covered. The description adds only the field list and id provenance, with nothing about invalid/unknown ids, error behavior, or whether data is cached. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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 purpose and return fields, then the id source and sibling routing. No filler, no repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a single-required-param read tool, the description plus schema gives everything needed to call it correctly and to pick the right sibling.

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 coverage is 100% and the id property already states 'Required numeric VLR event id from vlr_events'. The description's 'by numeric id' and 'Get the id from vlr_events' largely restate the schema, so 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+resource ('Returns one VLR.gg Valorant event by numeric id') and enumerates what comes back (name, series, dates, prize, location, participating teams with ids). It also names the siblings it must not be confused with (vlr_events for ids, vlr_event_matches, vlr_team), so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Get the id from vlr_events' for the prerequisite, and 'Use vlr_event_matches for its matches and vlr_team for a team' as the alternatives. Both the entry condition and the exclusion conditions are named.

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