lol-champion-skin-sale

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about retrieving 'currently on sale' information, which implies real-time or frequently updated data, but doesn't specify update frequency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in communicating the 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?

For a simple read operation with good annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and a well-documented single parameter, the description is adequate but has gaps. Without an output schema, the description doesn't indicate what information is returned about the sale skins (prices, discounts, availability, etc.). Given the tool's simplicity and good annotation coverage, the description meets minimum requirements but could better explain the return format.

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 the single parameter 'lang' fully documented in the schema including its purpose, enum values, and requirement. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieves information') and resource ('champion skins that are currently on sale'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on sale information rather than general champion data, analysis, or other game aspects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings in the list.

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. With many sibling tools available (like lol-champion-meta-data, lol-champion-analysis, etc.), there's no indication of when sale information is needed versus other champion data. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.

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