ow_rankers_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond data characteristics like 'locally curated' and 'evidenced,' which concern data source rather than tool behavior, so it does not meaningfully supplement 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope without extraneous details. It is well-structured, directly addressing the tool's function and its limitations.

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?

The description provides context about the data scope (local, curated, evidenced, dated) and what it is not (live Top 500), which helps an agent determine suitability. However, it lacks details about output format, parameter usage, or any special behavior, making it only moderately complete for a tool with 8 parameters and an output schema.

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 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The parameter names (hero, role, limit, region, season, country, rank_max, verified_only) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to search a locally curated, evidenced ranker registry with dated observations. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the complete live Top 500, leaving no ambiguity about the resource being accessed.

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?

The description provides a clear when-not by stating 'Not the complete live Top 500,' signaling that this tool is not for live rankings. It also implies when to use it (when needing curated, evidenced historical data), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for live data.

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