faceit_getHubStats

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.