Resolve static game data ids to names

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 largely covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the client-running prerequisite and the caching behavior of results, which the annotations do not express. It stops short of describing the failure mode when the client is not running, so not a full 5.

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?

Four tight sentences: purpose front-loaded, then usage, then alternatives, then prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant 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?

For a 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and the key operational constraint. It does not describe the return shape (default {id, name} plus optional fields) or pagination semantics for limit/offset, which the schema only partially implies, so a minor gap remains.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping raw ID types (championId, itemId, perkId, summonerSpellId, mapId, queueId) to the kind of document being queried, which clarifies the semantic link between the ids and kind parameters beyond the schema text.

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 (resolve) and resource (static game data IDs) and enumerates the exact ID kinds handled (championId, itemId, perkId, etc.), so an agent knows precisely what it produces. It also names the sibling tools it is not, making it distinguishable from lol_get and lol_schema without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (translating raw IDs from other tools or telemetry), names the alternatives for adjacent cases (lol_get for live client state, lol_schema for OpenAPI models), and states the prerequisite that the League client must be running. Nothing is left to inference.

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