search_similar_leagues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool uses the league's fingerprint and searches across multiple dimensions, which is transparent. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only tool, this is acceptable.

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 concise (three sentences) with the purpose stated first, followed by mechanism and use cases. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has two well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers what is needed: purpose, mechanism, and use cases. No gaps remain.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about using fingerprints but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it finds leagues with similar fingerprint profiles, using specific dimensions (archetype, operational maturity, market positioning, data characteristics). This distinguishes it from siblings like compare_leagues or compare_league_trajectories, which serve different purposes.

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 lists use cases (benchmarking, competitive analysis, finding comparable partnership candidates), providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives, missing slightly on exclusions.

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