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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable non-obvious behavior: the feature is not published yet and the tool returns available:false until the archive is wired in, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty/negative result as 'the crowd is never right'.

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 short sentences: the first defines the metric, the second delivers the critical availability caveat. No filler, and the most important operational fact is not buried.

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 no output schema, the description at least tells the agent what to expect in the failure case (available:false). It does not describe the shape of a successful response (per-competition/season record fields), which is a minor gap given the tool is currently non-functional anyway.

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%, with the enum values and the season format already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how mode or season affect the aggregation (e.g., whether omitting mode merges results), so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 states a specific metric — the crowd majority's hit rate, broken down by competition and season — which is more concrete than a generic 'get stats'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the get_consensus sibling, but the historical/aggregate framing is clear enough to distinguish the resource.

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?

Usage is implied: consult this when you want historical crowd accuracy. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_consensus or how to combine them, and no mention of the optional filtering behavior for agents weighing mode/season.

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