lol-champion-leader-board

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the tool's purpose for teaching champion playstyles and suggesting follow-up actions (e.g., retrieving champion performance or match history), enhancing behavioral understanding without repeating structured data.

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 somewhat verbose and could be more front-loaded; it mixes the core purpose with usage suggestions in a single run-on sentence. While not excessively long, it lacks tight structure, with the second part about teaching champion playstyles feeling tacked on rather than integrated efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and usage intent. However, it doesn't detail return values (e.g., leaderboard format or data fields) or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 clear enums for 'champion' and 'region', so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves a leaderboard of master players for a specific champion, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lol-champion-analysis' or 'valorant-leaderboard' that might have overlapping purposes, preventing 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 implies usage by mentioning looking up high-ranked players for teaching purposes, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lol-champion-analysis' or 'lol-summoner-search'. The context is somewhat clear but lacks specific exclusions or comparisons.

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