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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is the data-completeness caveat 'Maps never played are omitted' — a genuinely useful behavioral trait an agent could otherwise misread as missing data. It does not discuss staleness or rate limits, keeping it below the top mark.

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?

The purpose and the returned fields come first, the id-provenance note second, and the omission caveat last — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler. The field enumeration is slightly listy but each item carries real information.

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 needn't be explained in prose; the description still confirms the metric scope and flags the empty-map omission. For a single-parameter lookup tool with annotations and an output schema, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema field already says 'Required numeric VLR team id from vlr_rankings or a match page.' The description largely restates this, only adding vlr_event as an additional source, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a Valorant team's per-map record from VLR.gg') and enumerates exactly which metrics come back: games played, win percent, W/L, and attack/defense-side round win percent. This clearly separates it from the sibling aggregate/schedule tools such as vlr_team and vlr_team_matches.

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?

Tells the agent where to obtain the required id (from vlr_rankings, vlr_event or vlr_match), which is actionable prerequisite guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit 'do not use this to get match-level results' exclusion, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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