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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, while the description adds substantial behavioral context: field precedence, the fact that chip does not replace call, DOME display rules, afterTip/fantasy/roof caveats, changesSinceThursday behavior, and licensing terms. This is unusually rich for an agent-facing definition.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences add domain-specific field semantics or caveats. The paragraph is dense and could be better structured, but it avoids obvious filler.

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 does a good job explaining key return fields and precedence rules. Some referenced fields, such as note and hours, are only named rather than fully defined, leaving a modest completeness gap.

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 single weekId parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the YYYY-wNN pattern and omission for the current week. The description repeats the optional/current-week behavior but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 filter: games whose call is FLAG or WATCH, with optional week scoping. It clearly identifies the resource but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_week_board or get_changes.

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?

Explains that weekId is optional and that call should be read before note, chip, and hours. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_week_board, get_changes, or get_game.

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