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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the endpoint, parameters (offset/limit for pagination), and that it returns a 'Games list.' However, it does not mention rate limits, ordering, or explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes the endpoint and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has 2 optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, parameters, and return type ('Games list'). However, it lacks details about the structure of the returned games (e.g., fields like id, name), which would be helpful for a list endpoint. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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 0%, but the description manually lists parameters with types, defaults, and constraints (offset min 0, limit min 1 max 100), adding meaning beyond the schema. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could further explain pagination behavior.

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 details of all games on FACEIT and is used to enumerate supported games. It distinguishes itself from tools like faceit_getGame by emphasizing 'all games' and the role as a first step to discover game_id values.

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 explicitly says 'Use to enumerate every game supported on FACEIT' and notes it is 'Often the first step to discover valid game_id values for other tools.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers the behavior: it retrieves championship details, uses GET, has an optional expansion parameter. It discloses the HTTP method and endpoint structure. No side effects are mentioned, which is appropriate for a read operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, endpoint info, parameter details, and return note. It is concise, though the parameter listing could be slightly more integrated.

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 no output schema, the description's 'Returns: Championship details' is vague. It lacks specifics on response fields (e.g., organizer, game info, teams). For a retrieval tool, more detail on the return structure would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it notes championship_id is a path parameter, expanded is a query list with purpose 'to include the organizer and game inline'. This goes beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

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: 'Retrieve championship details', and specifies the key use case (when you have championship_id). It differentiates from sibling tools like getChampionshipResults or getChampionshipMatches by focusing on the full record.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use when you already have a championship_id and want the full championship record.' It also explains when to use the expanded parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond the immediate context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP endpoint, parameters with constraints, and return type. However, it does not detail ordering criteria or authentication requirements, which is acceptable for a read operation.

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 concise with a clear one-line purpose, usage guideline, endpoint, parameter list, and return statement. It is front-loaded with no redundant information.

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?

While the description covers parameters adequately, it lacks detail on the return value beyond 'Championship ranking'. Given no output schema, more explanation of the ranking structure (e.g., list of players, fields) would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed parameter descriptions, types, constraints (e.g., min, max), and defaults. This compensates fully, providing meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 group ranking of a championship, specifying the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'group ranking of a championship'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faceit_getChampionshipLeaderboards by focusing on a specific group's ranking.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when you have a championship_id and a group number and want the full ordered ranking. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided; the description only mentions the endpoint and parameters without detailing return structure, pagination behavior, or any safety traits beyond the basic read operation.

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?

Reasonably concise with front-loaded purpose; includes endpoint and parameter details which are useful but slightly redundant. Could be trimmed slightly but overall 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?

For a simple list operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic function and parameters. However, it lacks detail on the structure of returned leaderboards, which would aid the agent in understanding the output.

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 0%, but the description adds parameter types, location (path/query), constraints (min, max), and notes defaults (though not explicitly stated for offset/limit). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves all leaderboards of a championship and distinguishes from the sibling tool getChampionshipGroupRanking for specific group rankings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (list all leaderboards inside a championship) and when not (for a specific group's ranking), with an alternative tool name provided.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover all behavioral traits. It mentions pagination and type filtering but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects (though it is a read operation).

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, yet return value is only 'Matches list' without structure. Given pagination and filtering, more detail on the response format is needed for completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but description lists all 4 parameters with their location, type, constraints, and defaults, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Retrieve all matches of a championship' and distinguishes from sibling getChampionshipResults, which returns only winners.

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?

Explicitly says use for paging through matches of a known championship, and contrasts with an alternative tool for finished-match results. Could add conditions for when not to use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, idempotency, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Only minimal operational details are given.

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 well-structured: purpose sentence, usage guideline, endpoint, then parameter list. Each sentence serves a purpose with no waste. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

With no output schema, the description only says 'Returns: Championship results' which is vague. It does not mention pagination defaults (though schema shows default 20 for limit) or structure of results. Adequate for a simple list but could provide more context for a self-contained description.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), but the description adds comprehensive parameter details: type, location (path/query), required, min/max, defaults, and purpose for each parameter. This greatly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieve all results of a championship' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool faceit_getChampionshipMatches by noting when to use each: final results vs. live/upcoming matches.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when you only care about the final results' and provides an alternative ('For live/upcoming match details use getChampionshipMatches'), giving clear context and exclusion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the endpoint method (GET) and parameters, implying a read-only operation. It does not discuss rate limits, authorization, or other behaviors, but for a retrieval endpoint, the description is sufficient. Could add more context about response structure or pagination details.

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 concise and effectively front-loaded with the purpose and usage. The parameter list is integrated. However, it could be slightly more streamlined by removing the explicit parameter list if it's already detailed in the schema, but given no schema descriptions, it's appropriate.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and distinguishes from a key sibling. However, it does not describe the return format (beyond 'Championships list') and lacks details about default values or pagination behavior (though these are in the parameter descriptions). For a list endpoint without an output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, meaning the schema only provides names and types. The description adds full parameter semantics: 'game: The id of the game', 'type: Kind of matches to return... one of: all, upcoming, ongoing, past', 'offset: The starting item position', 'limit: The number of items to return (min 1, max 10)'. This significantly adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieve all championships of a game' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool 'searchChampionships' by noting that the latter is for free-text search by name.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when listing all championships for a given game' and provides guidance on when to use alternatives by mentioning 'For free-text search by championship name use searchChampionships instead.' It also notes optional filtering by status.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (implied by endpoint), parameter locations (path vs query), constraints (min/max), and that it returns a subscriptions list. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist). A slightly higher score could be justified if it mentioned authentication or rate limits, but it is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a usage note, the endpoint format, a bulleted parameter list, and a return statement. No extraneous information, every sentence provides value.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, details each parameter with constraints, and states the return type. There are no obvious gaps.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explicitly lists all three parameters with their locations (path vs query), types, constraints (min, max), and whether they are required. This far exceeds the schema information and compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieve all subscriptions of a championship' and explains it lists teams/players subscribed to a championship. It explicitly distinguishes from hub members and references an alternative tool (getHubMembers), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for championship subscriptions) and when not to (for hub members), and directly suggests an alternative tool (getHubMembers). This is excellent usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as retrieving game details and mentions the HTTP method (GET), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. It also doesn't mention authentication, rate limits, or error scenarios. For a retrieval tool, the behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 relatively concise at 85 words, but includes endpoint and parameter details that are partially redundant with the input schema. It is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Some minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return type ('Game detail'). It could be enhanced with more detail on the return structure or possible errors, but is sufficiently complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that game_id is 'the id of the game' and a 'string slug', and that it is a path parameter. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal 'Game Id' title. The description effectively documents the sole parameter.

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 'Retrieve game details' and specifies fetching the canonical record for one game by its game_id, which is a string slug. It also distinguishes from a sibling tool (getParentGame) for region-specific variants, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use an alternative tool: 'Call getParentGame if the id points to a region-specific variant and you want the parent.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies read-only behavior via the GET endpoint and retrieval language, but does not explicitly state nondestructive nature, authentication requirements, or potential error conditions. It provides basic behavioral context but could be more transparent.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, usage recommendation, endpoint specification, parameter list, and return type. While the first sentence somewhat repeats the tool name, the overall structure is clear and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description only states 'Returns: Matchmakings list', which lacks detail on the structure of list items or pagination metadata. For a list endpoint, more completeness on return format would improve agent understanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all four parameters: game_id as required path param, region as optional query, offset with min 0, limit with min 1 and max 100. It provides constraints and purpose beyond the schema definitions.

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 all matchmakings for a game and lists matchmaking queues. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'faceit_getMatchmaking' by specifying that tool is for details of a single matchmaking.

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 explicitly says 'Use to list the matchmaking queues a game exposes' and suggests drilling down with getMatchmaking for single matchmaking details. It provides good guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a retrieval operation (GET endpoint) but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior, default sorting, or response structure. The parameter details are present but not behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then includes an endpoint block and parameter list. While not overly long, it could be more concise by integrating the endpoint into the first sentence and trimming redundant details. The structure is adequate but not optimal.

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?

The description lacks an output schema and only states 'Returns: Ranking' without explaining the structure, pagination metadata, or field meanings. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete, especially missing details on the country filter and pagination behavior.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself lacks parameter descriptions. The tool's description compensates by listing each parameter with its type, location (path/query), required status, and constraints (min/max for offset and limit). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and titles.

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 'Retrieve global ranking of a game' and provides usage context for a global leaderboard page. It distinguishes from getPlayerRanking by noting when to use the alternative. However, it does not differentiate from other similar ranking tools like getLeaderboard or getHubRanking, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for a page of the global game/region leaderboard' and advises using getPlayerRanking or passing player_id for a specific player. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance, though it doesn't cover all sibling alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions endpoint, parameters, and return type, but lacks disclosure of side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Extremely concise: four short sentences plus parameter list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers what it does, when to use, parameters, and return type. Missing details like error handling or security, but given lack of output schema, it's reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: hub_id as the hub identifier, expanded as list of entity names to expand. Adds meaningful value over bare schema.

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 hub details, specifically mentioning the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'hub details'. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'searchHubs' for fuzzy name search.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use: 'Use when you already have a hub_id.' and when not to: 'For fuzzy name search use searchHubs.' This clearly guides the agent on context.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions endpoint and returns list but does not disclose any behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. However, it implies a read operation.

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?

Description is reasonably concise: one sentence for purpose, one for usage, then endpoint and parameter list. It is front-loaded and structured logically.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and endpoint. It lacks return format details but is sufficient for a list tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: explains hub_id as path/required, offset as query with min 0, limit with min 1 max 100. This compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieve all leaderboards of a hub' and 'list all leaderboards attached to a hub'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getHubRanking and getHubSeasonRanking.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to list all leaderboards attached to a hub. For a specific named ranking use getHubRanking (all-time) or getHubSeasonRanking (per season).' Provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation with 'Retrieve' and 'list', and mentions the endpoint method GET in the endpoint line. However, it does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage notes, endpoint, parameter list, and return hint. Each section serves a purpose, though a few words could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and parameters but lacks details on return structure, pagination behavior, and error scenarios. Given no output schema, this is a partial gap, but the tool's purpose is straightforward.

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 description provides detailed parameter documentation including type, required flag, default values, constraints, and allowed values (e.g., type enum). This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 all matches of a hub, using specific verbs 'Retrieve' and 'list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getHubMembers and getHubLeaderboards by name, ensuring the agent can select the correct tool.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to list hub matches) and provides two alternative tools for related tasks (getHubMembers, getHubLeaderboards). It does not cover all possible alternatives but offers clear guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions endpoint, pagination parameters, and returns list, but lacks details on ordering, total count, and the role filtering claim is misleading.

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?

Well-structured with purpose first, then guidelines, endpoint, and parameters. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more concise.

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?

Adequate for a basic retrieval tool, but missing details about return format, ordering, and the role filtering inconsistency. No output schema to compensate.

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 coverage is 0%, but description explains hub_id, offset, and limit with types and bounds. However, it mentions role filtering which is not in the schema, causing confusion.

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 it retrieves hub members and distinguishes from getHubRanking, but the mention of optional role filtering is inconsistent as no role parameter exists in the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (list members) and refers to alternative getHubRanking for rankings, providing clear context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the endpoint and return value but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. However, retrieval is implied, and no destructive behavior is indicated.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. No unnecessary information, 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?

For a simple data retrieval tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, usage guidance, and parameter details. It briefly states the return value ('Hub ranking') but lacks detailed return format. Overall adequate.

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 description lists the three parameters with their types, constraints, and endpoints. It adds value beyond the schema by specifying the endpoint path and parameter locations (path vs query), as well as defaults and ranges (min/max). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 it retrieves the all-time ranking of a hub, using the verb 'retrieve' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'getHubSeasonRanking' by explicitly contrasting the two.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (all-time ranking) and when to use the alternative ('getHubSeasonRanking' for a specific season), providing clear context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, error handling for invalid hub_id, rate limits, or the structure of the returned roles list beyond 'Roles list'.

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 concise with three sentences and a parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list could be integrated more smoothly, but it is not overly verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description only says 'Returns: Roles list', which is insufficient to understand the returned data structure. Additionally, it lacks details on typical use cases or relationships to other hub tools. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed.

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 0%, but the description compensates by detailing all three parameters with types, constraints (e.g., offset min 0 max 1000, limit min 1 max 50), and explanations of their meaning (starting position, number of items). This adds value beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve all roles members can have in a hub' and specifies 'list the roles that members of a hub can hold (admin, member, etc.)', which uses a specific verb and resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like faceit_getHubMembers or faceit_getHubLeaderboards.

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 states 'Use to list the roles...' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or restrictions beyond the required hub_id.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation (retrieve) and describes the endpoint and parameter. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: a single-line purpose, a usage instruction, the endpoint, and the parameter details. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essentials. It explains the purpose, the parameter, and the returns. It could be more specific about what 'Rules details' contains, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 one parameter (hub_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that it is a path parameter, required, and of type string, and ties it to the endpoint. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 'Retrieve rules of a hub' and specifies the endpoint. Among many hub-related sibling tools (e.g., faceit_getHub, faceit_getHubLeaderboards), this one is uniquely about rules, so it distinguishes itself well.

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 says 'Use to read the rules document attached to a hub,' which implies the context but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. There is no guidance on when to choose this over other hub retrieval tools.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions 'Endpoint: GET ...' which implies a read-only operation. The verb 'Retrieve' reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but the endpoint method gives adequate transparency for a read operation.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, usage guideline, endpoint, parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

No output schema exists. The description only says 'Returns: Hub ranking', which is vague. It lacks details on the structure of the response (e.g., list of entries, fields). For a retrieval tool, more output context would improve completeness.

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 properties lack descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by listing all four parameters (hub_id, season, offset, limit) with type, location, and constraints, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States 'Retrieve seasonal ranking of a hub' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'getHubRanking for all-time', making the purpose clear and unique.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for one specific season number', and when not: 'Use getHubRanking for all-time'. Provides clear usage context and an alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions the endpoint and that it retrieves data, but does not disclose read-only behavior, authorization needs, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety cues.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, usage, endpoint, parameters, return statement. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return value. It states 'Returns: Hub stats' which is vague and does not describe the structure or fields. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a notable gap in completeness.

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 description adds constraints (min 0 for offset, min 1 max 100 for limit) not present in the schema, and clarifies the meaning of each parameter (e.g., 'The starting item position' for offset). Despite high schema coverage, this additional context justifies a score above the baseline 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 'Retrieve statistics of a hub' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like getHubMatches and getHubMembers by specifying 'aggregate hub-wide statistics (matches played, top players, etc.)', which is distinct from other hub-related data.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('fetch aggregate hub-wide statistics'), implying it's for overall stats rather than specific lists. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and returns 'Competition ranking', but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or any side effects. The description adds little beyond the schema.

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 about 6 lines, covering purpose, usage condition, endpoint, parameters, and return. It is structured and concise, though some lines could be more terse. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, when to use, parameters, and return type. It doesn't detail pagination or ranking format, but it's sufficient for a simple GET tool.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by listing all parameters with types, constraints (min/max for offset and limit), and explanations ('starting item position', 'number of items to return'). It adds meaning beyond the schema, which only had defaults.

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 verb 'Retrieve ranking' and the resource 'from a leaderboard id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faceit_getGlobalRanking by specifying that a leaderboard_id is obtained from getChampionshipLeaderboards or getHubLeaderboards.

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?

Explicitly says to use when you already have a leaderboard_id from specific sources, providing clear context. Does not mention when to avoid using this tool, but the positive guidance is strong.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it is read-only (retrieve) but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error handling. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by endpoint and parameter list. No unnecessary information; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, description only states 'Returns: League details' without specifying what those details include. For a simple one-parameter tool, it is adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 0% with only type and title. Description adds endpoint and parameter description with path, type, and required status, compensating for the schema gap.

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?

Clearly states 'Retrieve details of a league' and 'fetch a FACEIT league's configuration by its league_id', distinguishing it from many sibling tools for other entities like championships, hubs, players, etc.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to fetch a FACEIT league's configuration' and provides the endpoint, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, which are implied by sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as being read-only, destructive, or requiring specific permissions. The tool's safe, read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving agents uncertain about side effects.

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 concise, with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides endpoint and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns: Season details' line is vague but brief.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and required inputs. However, it lacks details on return structure, pagination, or error conditions, which would help an agent fully understand the tool's output. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only provides types and required status. The description adds that both parameters are path parameters (league_id string, season_id integer) and are required, which adds basic meaning beyond the schema. However, there is no further detail on valid values or formatting, so it does not fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 details of a season within a league on FACEIT, using the verb 'retrieve' and specifying the resource as 'season'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faceit_getLeagueById (which gets league details) and faceit_getPlayerForLeagueSeason (player-specific), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives basic usage context: 'Use to fetch one season of a league'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is minimal and implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates the tool is read-only by nature (GET endpoint) and lists what fields are returned, but lacks details on response structure, potential errors, or prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with a front-loaded main statement, a usage tip, and a clear parameter section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides essential context. However, since there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'Match details' is vague; it could list more specific return fields or structure for full completeness.

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 0% description coverage for parameters; the description adds clarity by stating match_id is a path parameter, string, required, and its purpose. This compensation justifies a score above baseline.

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 it retrieves match details for a single match by match_id, listing included elements like lobby, factions, results, voting. It distinguishes from the sibling tool getMatchStats by specifying that the latter is for per-round/player stats.

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 tells when to use (fetch full match record) and provides an alternative tool for different granularity (getMatchStats for per-round/player stats). It does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool, but the alternative guidance is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the endpoint and parameter but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, permissions needed, error behavior, or response structure. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, front-loading the primary purpose, then usage guidance, then endpoint and parameter. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description only says 'Returns: Matchmaking', which is vague. It lacks details on response structure, error conditions, or any prerequisites. Given the simplicity, it is barely adequate but could do more.

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 description fully documents the sole parameter: name, location (path), type (str), requirement (required), and meaning (the id of the matchmaking). Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds essential meaning beyond the schema's title.

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 details of a matchmaking configuration by ID. It distinguishes from sibling getGameMatchmakings, which retrieves a list. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'matchmaking details' are specific.

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 explicitly says 'Use to fetch one matchmaking configuration by matchmaking_id' and provides an alternative: 'For the list of matchmakings belonging to a game use getGameMatchmakings.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations exist; the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns empty/404 for unfinished matches, which is a critical behavioral trait. It is read-only by nature, but the description does not explicitly state that.

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 well-structured with a clear verb, usage guidance, endpoint info, parameter list, and return note. Every sentence adds value and it is not verbose.

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?

The description is complete for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter. It explains what it does, when to use, and what it returns. However, it does not detail the return structure beyond listing data types.

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 0%, but the description explicitly explains the single parameter (match_id) as a required path string representing the match ID, adding full meaning beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves statistics of a match, specifies the data included (rounds, K/D/A, map, score), and distinguishes from siblings like faceit_getMatch by focusing on stats for finished matches.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to use for finished matches only, and warns of empty/404 for unfinished matches. Does not explicitly name alternatives, but context implies differentiation from other match-related tools.

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

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the HTTP method (GET), endpoint, and return type. Lacks mention of authentication or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, this is nearly sufficient.

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?

Concise (3 sentences + endpoint and parameter list), front-loaded with purpose, then guidance, then technical details. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description provides all necessary information: purpose, usage context, parameter details, and expected return.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents the parameter 'organizer_id' with type, location (path), and meaning, compensating completely.

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 'Retrieve organizer details' and distinguishes from siblings by specifying alternatives for name-based lookup (getOrganizerByName) and fuzzy search (searchOrganizers).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you already have an organizer_id') and when not to, with direct references to alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint (/organizers) and notes the return type, but omits details like authentication, rate limits, or potential errors. For a simple read tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 structured into a purpose statement, usage guidance, endpoint, parameters, and return info. It is mostly concise, though 'Use when you only have...' could be slightly tighter. Still efficient and well-organized.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter details, and return type. Missing are error handling or limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds parameter type (string, query, required) and a brief description ('The name of the organizer'), providing some value beyond the schema title, but could be more explicit (e.g., formatting, case sensitivity).

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 explicitly states 'Retrieve organizer details from name', clearly identifying the verb (retrieve) and resource (organizer details from name). It distinguishes from getOrganizer by specifying name-based vs id-based lookup.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when you only have an organizer name string and need the canonical organizer record' and directs to getOrganizer for id-based lookup, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

The description reveals the HTTP method (GET), pagination parameters (offset, limit), sorting, and filtering (published_only), which are behavioral traits. Without annotations, it does well, but does not explicitly state read-only or authentication requirements.

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 appropriately concise with a summary, usage hint, endpoint, and parameter list. The parameter list is clear but could be more structured (e.g., using a table). Still, every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (pagination, sorting) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimal on return value ('Championships list'). It could provide more detail on the response structure or common fields.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, location, type, and constraints (e.g., 'published_only: When set to true only published championships are retrieved', 'limit: min 1, max 100'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Retrieve all championships of an organizer' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faceit_getChampionships (general) and faceit_getOrganizerTournaments (different resource) by focusing on championships and requiring an organizer_id.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use to list championships run by a known organizer', providing clear context for when to invoke. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes it obvious.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the HTTP endpoint (GET) and that it returns a 'Games list,' but lacks details on pagination, sorting, error conditions, or permission requirements. This is adequate but minimal.

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 very concise: a one-line purpose, a usage statement, the endpoint, parameter details, and a returns line. No redundant information; every part earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, the parameter, and return type. It could be improved by mentioning potential pagination or rate limits, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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 only provides a title and type for organizer_id, with 0% coverage (no description in schema). The tool description adds context: it is a path parameter, required, and 'The id of the organizer.' This adds meaningful information beyond the schema.

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 action ('Retrieve all games an organizer is involved with') and the resource ('games an organizer runs events for'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getOrganizerChampionships or getOrganizerHubs by specifically returning games.

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 explains when to use: 'to list the games an organizer runs events for.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It includes endpoint info and parameter details, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination behavior beyond offset/limit, or what happens when organizer_id is invalid. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise (about 5 lines) with a clear structure: purpose statement, usage hint, endpoint, parameter list, return type. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description states 'Returns: Hubs list' which is minimal. It explains all three parameters adequately, but lacks details on the structure of hub objects or possible error conditions. It is minimally complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with type and constraints (e.g., 'organizer_id: The id of the organizer'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Retrieve all hubs of an organizer' and 'list hubs owned by a known organizer,' making the verb+resource explicit. It differentiates from sibling tools like faceit_searchHubs by specifying retrieval by organizer ID.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use to list hubs owned by a known organizer.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., faceit_searchHubs for searching by name), leaving some gap in decision guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the endpoint, parameters, and return type (Tournaments list). It lacks details on pagination behavior, auth needs, or side effects, but as a read-only list operation, basic info is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage, endpoint, parameter list, and return type. It is concise with no wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description states 'Returns: Tournaments list' but does not detail the structure. Parameters are well explained. It covers the essentials for a list tool with pagination, though additional output details would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: organizer_id (path, required), type (with enum values 'past'/'upcoming' and default), offset (minimum 0), and limit (min 1, max 100, default 20). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema.

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 all tournaments of an organizer. It distinguishes from siblings like faceit_getOrganizerChampionships and faceit_getTournamentsList by specifying 'tournaments of an organizer' with optional type filtering.

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 explicitly says 'Use to list tournaments run by a known organizer' and mentions optional filtering to past or upcoming. It does not compare to alternatives but the context is clear given siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the endpoint and that it returns 'Game detail', but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, it is adequate but not rich.

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 fairly concise with separate sections for purpose, usage, endpoint, parameters, and returns. The 'Parameters:' block is redundant with the schema but overall structure is efficient.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, endpoint, and return type. While 'Returns: Game detail' is vague, it is arguably sufficient given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the endpoint format (path) and type (string, required) but only restates 'The id of the game'. It does not explain what constitutes a valid game_id or how to find it, providing minimal added meaning.

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 action: 'Retrieve the details of the parent game, if the game is region-specific'. It uses specific verb 'Retrieve' on resource 'parent game' and distinguishes from siblings like faceit_getGame which gets any game.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the game_id is a region-specific variant...and you want the canonical parent game.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the endpoint and that it returns player details, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response structure. For a simple GET, it is minimally adequate.

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 concise with a clear purpose, usage note, endpoint, and parameter bullet. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could list example fields returned, but the sibling tools cover more specific details, so this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds a dedicated 'Parameters' section explaining player_id as 'The id of the player', which provides meaning beyond the schema's title and type.

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 player details and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like getPlayerFromLookup and searchPlayers by specifying when to use each.

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?

It provides explicit guidelines: 'Use when you already have the FACEIT player_id (UUID).' and directs alternative tools for nickname or fuzzy lookup.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the operation as a retrieval of bans and includes endpoint information. It could add details about pagination behavior, but it is sufficiently transparent for this simple read operation.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, usage hint, endpoint, then parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy to scan.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description states 'Returns: Bans of a user,' which is adequate but minimal. More detail on the structure of a ban object would improve completeness, but the current version is sufficient for basic use.

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 description compensates fully for 0% schema coverage. It lists all three parameters with types, defaults, and constraints (e.g., offset min 0, limit min 1 max 100), adding substantial value beyond the schema's bare types.

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 'Retrieve all bans of a player' and 'list active and historical bans for a known player,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like faceit_getPlayer or faceit_getPlayerHistory.

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 includes 'Use to list active and historical bans for a known player,' giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates this is a read operation but lacks specifics on authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'details' are returned (e.g., division, placement). The safety profile is implied but not explicit.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence but then becomes verbose by listing the endpoint and parameter details that are already present in the input schema. Some redundancy reduces conciseness.

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 lookup with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and required IDs. However, it lacks information about the return value (beyond 'Player details'), error conditions, or common use-case examples, which would make it more complete.

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 0%, meaning the description repeats the schema titles verbatim (league_id, season_id, player_id) without adding meaning such as example values, formatting rules, or relationships. The description adds no value beyond the schema for the parameters.

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 'Retrieve details of a player for a given league and season' and distinguishes this from sibling tools like faceit_getPlayer by specifying the need for league, season, and player IDs together. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Use to look up a single player's division/placement within one season of a league', which implies appropriate context but does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. No guidance on when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It mentions endpoint and that it returns player details in a single call, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. Acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Description is clear and front-loaded with purpose. It uses multiple sentences but each adds value. Could trim the endpoint line as it's redundant with the tool name, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, so description should cover what 'Player details' entails. It lacks details on return fields, pagination, or error scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity, it covers the basics but leaves agents uncertain about what to expect.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists and briefly describes each parameter (nickname, game, game_player_id) and implies that at least one is needed. However, it doesn't specify formats, accepted game values, or interaction between parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Clearly states 'Retrieve player details' and distinguishes from siblings: 'Prefer this over searchPlayers when the nickname is exact. Prefer getPlayer when you already have the player_id.' The verb and resource are specific.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'when you have an exact nickname OR a game-specific id' and gives alternatives for different scenarios. This provides clear decision criteria.

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

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

Discloses that returns match metadata (not stats) and mentions endpoint, but no annotations exist. Lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond parameter descriptions, though it adds value by describing output type.

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?

Description is well-structured: a one-line purpose, usage context, endpoint, clear parameter list with descriptions, and return type. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Covers the main purpose, parameters, and output type ('Player matches list'). Without an output schema, it does not detail the structure of a match object, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic function.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including defaults (from_ defaults to 1 month ago, to defaults to current timestamp). However, the 'game' parameter is only vaguely described as 'A game on FACEIT'.

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 'Retrieve all matches of a player' and specifies the verb 'list' with resource 'matches'. It distinguishes from sibling getMatchStats, providing clarity on what this tool returns (match metadata vs. stats).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to list matches a player has played across a time window' and advises pairing with getMatchStats for per-match detail, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives beyond that.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the endpoint, parameters, and return type 'Hubs list' but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or details about pagination behavior beyond the parameters.

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 highly concise: two lines for purpose, then 'Use to list...', endpoint, bullet list of parameters, and return type. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It could explain what a 'hub' is or handle edge cases, but for a simple retrieval tool it is fairly complete.

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 0%, but the description includes a full Parameters section explaining each parameter: player_id (path, str, required), offset (query, int | None, min 0, max 1000), limit (query, int | None, min 1, max 50). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Retrieve all hubs of a player' and 'Use to list hubs a player belongs to.' The verb 'retrieve/list' and resource 'hubs of a player' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like faceit_getPlayerTeams or faceit_getPlayerTournaments.

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 includes 'Use to list hubs a player belongs to,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would be helpful given the many sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose: it mentions the endpoint path and that it returns stats, but does not disclose potential traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, the description should carry more burden but fails to do so.

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 concise with three clear sentences and a structured parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and provides usage guidance without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and usage context with a sibling tool. However, it lacks details about the return structure or output fields, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. However, it only restates parameter names, types, and requirement from the schema, with vague descriptions like 'A game on FACEIT'. It does not explain how to obtain valid values or provide examples.

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 it retrieves lifetime aggregate statistics for a player in a specific game, listing examples like overall K/D, win rate, map-level totals. It distinguishes from the sibling tool getPlayerRecentMatchStats.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for aggregated lifetime stats and directs to getPlayerRecentMatchStats for per-match stats, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the endpoint and parameters but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or the exact structure of the response beyond 'Ranking'. The term 'nearby context' is vague.

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 concise with two sentences of core purpose, a usage guideline, endpoint, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters but does not detail the return value structure beyond 'Ranking'. Given no output schema, more detail on the response fields (e.g., position, nearby players) would improve completeness for an agent to use the response correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: game_id, region, player_id, country (with ISO code hint), and limit (with min/max). However, it does not specify how limit affects the nearby context.

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 player's position in the global ranking of a game, using the verb 'retrieve' and specifying the resource 'user position'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'getGlobalRanking' by noting it fetches a single player's position and nearby context, not the full leaderboard.

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 explicitly says 'Use to fetch one player's position and nearby context' and directs users to 'getGlobalRanking' for the full leaderboard, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an entry with position and score, and mentions the endpoint and parameters. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error conditions, which are relevant for a read operation.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear purpose statement, then usage, endpoint, parameter list, and return info. It is slightly verbose with the endpoint line but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value as 'the entry with position and score', which is adequate for a simple lookup tool. It covers the essential aspects for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter with its location, type, and role (e.g., 'The id of the leaderboard'). This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though the schema already indicates required status.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource (player ranking in a leaderboard). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns a single entry rather than the whole board, and mentions the specific endpoint.

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 explicitly says 'Use to look up where a single player sits on a specific leaderboard', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools imply alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains pagination, per-match granularity, date filtering, and parameter constraints. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or authentication requirements, and the return format is vague ('Player stats for matches'). Still, for a read operation, the description is fairly transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, usage guidance, endpoint, and parameter list. Each sentence adds value, but the parameter details could be slightly more concise without losing clarity. Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should have explained the return structure in more detail. It only states 'Returns: Player stats for matches', which is insufficient for an agent to understand the response format. The description does well to differentiate from siblings, but completeness suffers from the vague return description.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so effectively, detailing each parameter's location (path/query), type, constraints (min/max, default), and purpose for date filters (epoch milliseconds). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic title and type.

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 a specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'paginated per-match statistics for a player in a specific game'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning getPlayerLifetimeStats and getPlayerHistory, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to page through per-match stats) and when not, providing clear alternatives: 'For career totals use getPlayerLifetimeStats. For the timeline of matches without stats use getPlayerHistory.' This is excellent guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description includes the HTTP method (GET) implying a safe read, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adds basic transparency via endpoint information but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured: one-line purpose, usage hint, endpoint, parameter list, and return statement. No redundant information; front-loaded with key action.

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 no output schema and a simple list retrieval, the description mentions 'Returns: Teams of a user' which is adequate but could elaborate on the structure of team objects. It is mostly complete for a straightforward tool.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by listing each parameter (player_id, offset, limit) with type, path/query, constraints, and purpose. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Retrieve all teams of a player' and 'Use to list teams a player is a member of.' It clearly identifies the verb (retrieve/list) and resource (teams of a player), distinguishing it from sibling tools like faceit_getPlayer (player profile) or faceit_getPlayerHubs (hubs).

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 explicitly says 'Use to list teams a player is a member of,' indicating when to use. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context from sibling names makes it clear that this is the dedicated tool for teams.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it states the HTTP method (GET) implying read-only, it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 well-structured with a summary, usage guidance, endpoint, and parameter list. It is front-loaded but includes some redundant information like the endpoint URL, making it slightly less concise.

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?

The description adequately explains how to use the tool and its parameters, but given the absence of output schema and annotations, it lacks details on the return structure (e.g., fields in the tournaments list), leaving some ambiguity.

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 0%, but the description adds significant value by specifying each parameter's location (path/query), type, constraints (min/max for offset and limit), and required status, which is not present in the schema.

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 all tournaments for a player, using specific verbs 'retrieve' and 'list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like faceit_getTeamTournaments by focusing on player tournaments.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to list tournaments a player has participated in'), providing clear context without specifying alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description only states it's a GET request returning a bans list, with no mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Description is structured with a clear intro, endpoint line, parameter list, and return info. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose with explicit endpoint, but overall efficient.

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?

Covers basics: purpose, parameters, return. Lacks details on authentication, error handling, pagination behavior, or what bans contain. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, but the description compensates by detailing each parameter's purpose, type, location (path/query), and constraints (min/max). Adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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 'Retrieve queue bans on FACEIT' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like faceit_getQueueById by focusing on bans.

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 ('Use to list...') but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use. Siblings include many queue-related tools, so guidance is lacking.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Retrieve details,' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or required permissions. The description is adequate but not fully transparent about behavioral traits.

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 concise with a few sentences, including the endpoint and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the endpoint and parameter details could be considered redundant given the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

The tool has 2 required params and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and when to use it, but the return value is only described as 'Queue' with no detail. For a simple retrieval tool, it is adequate but lacks output format specifics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It lists parameters with type and path location, but adds little beyond the schema. It restates game_id and queue_id without explaining their meaning or constraints, providing minimal added value.

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 details of a queue on FACEIT, and mentions configuration and current state. It specifies using when queue_id is known, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getQueueBans or getQueuesByEntityFilters.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when you already have a queue_id and want its configuration and current state'), providing clear context. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation (GET endpoint) and lists parameters. However, it does not disclose authentication needs or rate limits, which prevents a perfect score.

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 concise, starting with purpose, then usage guidelines, endpoint, and parameter list. It is well-structured and easy to scan, though slightly lengthy for some preferences.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should detail the return structure beyond 'Queues list'. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what data to expect, leaving a significant completeness gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides type and required status for all parameters, and adds min/max constraints for offset and limit. However, for required parameters entity_type and entity_id, it merely restates the name without explaining acceptable values or formats.

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 queues by filters on FACEIT and lists queues for a game with arbitrary entity filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning alternative tools: getQueuesByRegion and getQueueById.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this tool for arbitrary entity filters; if you know the region, use getQueuesByRegion; if you know the queue_id, use getQueueById. This directly addresses when to use alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the endpoint, parameter types, and return type ('Queues list'). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation, it is adequately transparent. Could note pagination behavior implicitly.

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 succinct with a brief intro, a usage note, and a structured parameter list. Every sentence is functional and avoids redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 list endpoint with 4 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return. Lacks detail on the structure of the queues list, but the return type is mentioned. Sibling differentiation adds completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully documents all four parameters: location (path vs query), constraints (min/max, required/optional), and defaults. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Retrieve queues by region' and explains it lists queues available in a specific region (e.g., EU, NA). It distinguishes from sibling 'getQueuesByEntityFilters' by specifying when to use that alternative.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use to list queues available in a specific region') and when not to ('Pick getQueuesByEntityFilters instead when filtering by non-region entities'), providing clear decision criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieve team details' and includes the endpoint, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a read-only retrieval, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the purpose, then usage, followed by endpoint, parameters, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage, parameter details, endpoint, and a note on return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'team_id (path, str, required): The id of the team'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and type, helping the agent understand the parameter's role.

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 team details and provides the full team record. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like faceit_getTeamStats or faceit_getTeamTournaments.

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 says 'Use when you already have the team_id and want the full team record,' providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like faceit_searchTeams.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the endpoint and parameters but does not disclose behavioral aspects like side effects, authentication needs, or data freshness. However, as a read-only GET endpoint, it is inherently non-destructive.

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 concise with a clear purpose followed by usage guidelines and parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the endpoint line adds marginal value.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states returns 'Team stats' but lacks detail on the structure or fields. It covers the essential context 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides basic parameter descriptions (e.g., 'The id of the team' and 'A game on FACEIT'). These add meaning beyond the schema but lack specifics like format or examples.

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 'Retrieve statistics of a team' and specifies it is for aggregated stats in a specific game, distinguishing from tournament-specific or match-specific stats. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (team's aggregated stats in a specific game) and what not to use it for (tournament-specific or match-specific stats). It does not list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the endpoint and parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It is insufficient for a tool with no 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides the endpoint and parameter details. It is fairly concise, though the endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the parameter explanations. Overall efficient.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks information on pagination behavior, error scenarios, or ordering, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by listing each parameter with its location, type, required status, and constraints (e.g., min/max values). This provides helpful context beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'tournaments of a team', and specifies it lists tournaments a team has participated in. This differentiates it from sibling tools like faceit_getTeamStats or faceit_getTeam.

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 explains that the tool is used to list tournaments a team has participated in, but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It is adequate for a straightforward list tool.

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