lol-champion-meta-data

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by using 'retrieves' (implying a read operation). The description adds value by specifying the type of data returned ('statistics and performance metrics'), but does not provide additional behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, which are not covered by 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves meta data') and includes key details ('statistics and performance metrics'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or differentiation from siblings. For a read-only tool with full schema coverage, it meets the minimum viable standard 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 clear enum lists and descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'champion' names or the impact of 'lang' on localization. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves meta data for a specific champion, including statistics and performance metrics.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('meta data for a specific champion'), and scope ('statistics and performance metrics'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'lol-champion-analysis' or 'lol-champion-positions-data', which may have overlapping 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'lol-champion-analysis' or 'lol-champion-positions-data', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, such as needing a specific champion name from the provided enum list.

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