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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: unrecognised names return the closest matches rather than a guess, headline vs all vs named-metric semantics, and that a source rank is included where one exists. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope behavior, then name resolution. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler or repeated name/title material.

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, and the description does compensate: it describes what comes back for each scope mode, that rows may carry a source rank, and how unknown names are handled. The undocumented season parameter and the lack of any note on result limits keep it from a 5.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It covers entity (with examples), scope (headline/all/named metric) and implies entity_kind via 'one NFL player or one NFL team', but gives no meaning for params like season or the accepted metric identifier syntax, leaving documented gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: returns the verified figures Muffed holds for one NFL player or team. An agent can distinguish this from query_stat_leaders or run_stat_query, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains how to address the entity (name or abbreviation, with concrete examples) and what the scope modes do, which is useful usage context. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus compare_entities, query_stat_leaders or run_stat_query, so the agent must infer which retrieval tool fits.

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