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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: what is returned (the card plus season-to-date totals) and the caveat that 'grades are historical'. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or what happens for an unpublished/missing week.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: trigger, parameter default, return contents, and sibling routing. The routing to get_game is placed at the end where it disambiguates rather than clutters.

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, so the description carries the return-value burden and does state what comes back (the card and season-to-date totals). That covers the main gap; only finer return-shape details are absent, which is minor for a single-optional-parameter read.

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 weekId property already documents the YYYY-wNN pattern and the omit-for-newest behavior. The description restates the same facts rather than adding format examples or error behavior, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 verb and resource ('need a published Sideline report card') and ties it to an external analogue ('the same cards as /report-cards'). It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_game, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the exact selection condition ('Use when you need a published ... report card'), states the default behavior when weekId is omitted, and names the alternative tool for the adjacent use case ('For the live weather call, use get_game'). Nothing is left to inference.

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