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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries extra burden and does add real context: grades are historical, roof.status is an announcement that does not change the call, afterTip is a quiet note not a flag. These clarify the meaning of returned data (valuable with no output schema) but disclose nothing about auth, rate limits, or data scope.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and useful, but the description then crams a stream of unlabeled output-field jargon (call, chip, afterTip, roof.status, changesSinceThursday) into run-on sentences with no structure or grouping. It is neither concise nor easy to parse, and readers cannot tell these are output fields.

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 must explain return semantics and it makes an attempt, covering the card concept, weekId behavior, and several notable fields. But the field discussion is disorganized and incomplete (no overall shape, no indication of nesting), so an agent gets partial rather than complete coverage.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the format and adds the omit-default behavior ('newest published card'), which only slightly differs from the schema's 'current week'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 its identity clearly: 'A published Sideline report card, the same cards as /report-cards.' It also names a sibling (get_game) for the live weather use case, giving partial differentiation. It stops short of a crisp verb+scope framing, and the remainder of the description drifts into output-field jargon rather than reinforcing the purpose.

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?

'Optional weekId (YYYY-wNN). Omit it for the newest published card' gives clear invocation guidance, and 'For the live weather call, use get_game' names one alternative. However, there is no guidance on when to use this card versus get_week_board or get_flags, and the bulk of the text is interpretation notes rather than selection criteria.

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