lol-brawl-champion-tier-rank

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal context beyond them—it only states the retrieval action without detailing aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('retrieves champion tier ranking list in brawl mode'), making it easy to parse and understand quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or structural fluff.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive behavior), the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the resource and mode but lacks details on return format, data scope, or error handling. For a retrieval tool with good annotations, it meets basic needs but could be more informative.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'lang' parameter fully documented via its enum and description. The tool description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain default behavior or parameter implications). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Retrieves champion tier ranking list in brawl mode.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('champion tier ranking list'), and context ('brawl mode'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., 'lol-champion-leader-board'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'lol-champion-leader-board' or 'lol-champion-analysis', nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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