faceit_getChampionshipSubscriptions

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.