tft-meta-item-combinations

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context by specifying it's for 'retrieving information,' which aligns with read-only behavior, and mentions 'TFT' (likely Teamfight Tactics), providing domain context not in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, and adds mild value beyond them.

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 states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying 'TFT'). There's no wasted text, making it front-loaded and clear.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks output schema, doesn't explain return values or format, and doesn't address complexity like pagination or error handling. For a retrieval tool, more context on what information is returned would improve completeness, but annotations provide some coverage.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, detailing 'language' as champion names in League of Legends with an enum list. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as default behavior or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 states the tool 'retrieves information about item combinations and recipes' which provides a clear verb ('retrieving') and resource ('item combinations and recipes'), but it doesn't specify what 'TFT' means or differentiate from sibling tools like 'tft-champion-item-build' or 'tft-recommend-champion-for-item' that might handle similar TFT-related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope and distinction.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'tft-champion-item-build' that might be related. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit instructions.

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