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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that the status enum is closed and strictly validated upstream, while the entity type and leaderboard type values are merely observed and unvalidated by the gateway. That validation asymmetry is exactly the kind of reliability caveat an agent needs before trusting these values in a downstream call.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is returned, the strict-validation constraint, and the unvalidated secondary values. Minor redundancy between "Get FACEIT leaderboard status enum" and "Returns the closed leaderboard status enum" costs a point but nothing is padded.

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-parameter enum tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the exact value set, the casing contract, and a warning about which returned values are trustworthy. Return-value structure is left to the output schema, which is the right division of labor.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, single-shot lookup with no input requirements.

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 ("Get FACEIT leaderboard status enum") and enumerates the exact values returned, so an agent immediately understands this is a static reference/enum lookup rather than a data fetch. It never explicitly names a sibling like faceit_leaderboard or faceit_leaderboard_detail, so the differentiation is functional rather than stated.

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?

Explains the operative context: the enum is closed and the upstream rejects lowercase or any other value, so callers must use the exact uppercase strings. That tells an agent why to call it and how to use the result. It stops short of explicitly saying "call this before faceit_leaderboard to obtain a valid status filter," so no alternative routing is stated.

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