get_champion

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions fuzzy name matching, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., if no match found), data source or freshness, or any side effects. While adequate, it lacks some transparency.

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 two sentences long with no filler. It conveys the purpose, content, and a key behavior (fuzzy matching) efficiently, earning 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention the structure of the return value or the possibility of multiple matches due to fuzzy matching, but it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter 'name' described in schema as 'exact or partial match'. The description adds context of fuzzy matching, supplementing the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the added value (fuzzy matching hint) brings it to 4.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'complete details for a specific TFT champion', listing specific content (stats, traits, ability). It also notes fuzzy name matching, differentiating it from sibling tools like search_champions which likely return lists.

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 implies when to use: when you need all details for a single champion. It does not explicitly say when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context from sibling tools (e.g., search_champions for broad queries) makes it reasonably clear.

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