lol-champion-analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about the data scope (detailed champion info, high winrate champions, counter picks in weakCounters field) and behavioral expectation ('assume the position user want to know'), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with repetitive usage instructions ('you must always call', 'should also occasionally call', 'also you need to call'). Some sentences could be consolidated for better efficiency, though all content is relevant.

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 complexity (4 required parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides good context on data returned (win rates, builds, skill orders, items, counter picks) and usage scenarios. However, it doesn't detail response format or potential limitations, leaving some gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear enum descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning 'position' assumption and 'high winrate champions' but not elaborating on parameter interactions or effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 very detailed information about a specific champion' and lists specific data types (win rate, pick rate, recommended builds, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on champion-specific analysis rather than schedules, standings, or other game aspects.

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 explicit usage rules: 'must always call this function' when a champion is mentioned, 'should also occasionally call' for gameplay tips, and specifies scenarios like 'what items should I buy?' or 'which skill should I level up?'. It also references the 'weakCounters' field for counter picks, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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