Query LCU OpenAPI/Swagger schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the live League client must be running and results are cached in memory after first load. No return-shape detail, but the input/output expectations are otherwise clear.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then routing alternatives, then the prerequisite. No redundant sentences; every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description names what you retrieve (signatures, parameters, request bodies, data models) and discloses the runtime prerequisite and caching behavior. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the exact return format is left implicit.

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% with per-parameter descriptions (path keyword, model name, method enum, refresh flag), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the general purpose of lookups ('find the exact request schema, parameter types, or response models'), which does not go much beyond the schema. 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 (Inspect) and resource (LCU API endpoint signatures, parameters, request bodies, data models) and ties it to the live OpenAPI/Swagger v2 spec. An agent can immediately distinguish it from lol_request, lol_endpoints, and lol_static 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('before invoking lol_request') and names two alternatives with their selecting conditions (lol_endpoints for a lightweight list, lol_static for game assets). Routing is unambiguous.

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