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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well by describing the returned shape in detail, including the important caveat that time series are collapsed into historyPoints counts. It does not cover pagination, rate limits, or behavior for invalid season slugs, leaving some operational gaps.

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 resource and payload contents, with the sibling redirect placed at the end where it belongs. The long enumeration of fields is dense but each item conveys real payload information; a bulleted form would read marginally better.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and it does so thoroughly, including the historyPoints summarization caveat. Minor omissions are error behavior and any notion of result size or pagination for large seasons.

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%, so show, search, and status are already documented with examples and accepted values. The description adds no additional meaning about filtering semantics or how status interacts with show type, 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?

The description opens with a specific resource and scope ("Full cast of a season") and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: follower counts, baselines, growth windows, elimination status, milestone projections, and partner pairings. It also distinguishes itself from get_follower_history, so an agent can separate it from get_contestant (single person) and the history sibling 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?

It explicitly routes time-series requests elsewhere: "use get_follower_history for the series itself," which is a concrete when-not condition. It gives no guidance on get_contestant for a single contestant or export_season_csv for bulk export, so sibling differentiation is only partly covered.

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