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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds genuinely new context: attribution requirement, the ban on model training, and the semantics of returned fields (call vs. chip vs. afterTip, roof.status as club announcement, changesSinceThursday). It still says nothing about result size or pagination.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and every sentence does carry information. But the body is a choppy run of fragments ('Read call first, then note, then chip and hours') that leans on undefined jargon and would be easier to parse as a short structured list.

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 usefully explains the meaning of the fields an agent will receive and the week-scoping behavior, plus licensing terms. For a single-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete; only return shape and volume remain unaddressed.

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 100% and the only parameter's schema text already says 'Omit for the current week,' which the description merely repeats. No format or edge-case detail is added beyond the schema, so the 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?

The opening sentence states the resource and filter precisely: games whose call is FLAG or WATCH. That is a specific retrieval scope an agent can act on. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like get_week_board or get_game, so an agent must infer which tool to reach for.

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 gives reading guidance ('Read call first, then note, then chip and hours') and week scoping ('omit it for the current week'), which implies how to consume the result. It never states when to use this tool instead of get_week_board or get_game, and names no exclusions.

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