lol-champion-positions-data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and other safety hints, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about tier_data interpretation and recommendation use cases, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, data freshness, or other behavioral traits that would be helpful for an agent.

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 but contains some redundancy (listing multiple metrics could be streamlined) and includes parenthetical commentary that could be integrated more cleanly. It's reasonably concise but not optimally structured, with the recommendation use case appended rather than front-loaded with core functionality.

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 (analytics retrieval with multiple metrics), good annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what data is returned and includes a tier_data interpretation, but lacks output format details (no output schema) and doesn't address data scope (e.g., time period, patch version). The recommendation use case adds value but doesn't fully compensate for missing contextual elements.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (format and lang). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 the analytics of champions by each positions' with specific examples of metrics like winrate, banrate, plays, and tier_data. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on champion position analytics rather than schedules, standings, or other champion data types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'lol-champion-analysis' which might overlap.

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 like 'lol-champion-analysis' or 'lol-champion-leader-board'. It mentions recommending champions based on tier_data, but this is usage advice rather than tool selection guidance. No explicit when/when-not statements or sibling comparisons are included.

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