faceit_getChampionships

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.