faceit_getChampionship

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.