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

Annotations only declare read-only/safe/non-open-world; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: which statuses are included (FLAG and WATCH) and excluded (DOME, CLEAR, closed/fixed roofs), how retractable roofs are treated, and the sort order by kickoff. That is exactly the filtering logic an agent needs to predict results.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling preference before the filtering details, and every clause carries information (selection, inclusion rules, ordering, return fields). It is longer than typical but sized to a tool with no output schema; the return-field list is the only mildly listy section.

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 only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested data, the description still covers trigger timing, alternative routing, default week behavior, inclusion/exclusion rules, sort order, and per-game payload fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 schema already documents the YYYY-wNN pattern, the regular-season 1–18 range, and omitting for the current week. The description repeats the format and omit-default without adding syntax or edge cases 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 verb and resource ('kick-time checklist of outdoor weather games') and pins the timing ('before Sunday lock'), which is a concrete scope. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_flags, so an agent can select it without opening any 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 an explicit when ('Use before Sunday lock'), an explicit alternative and preference rule ('Prefer this over get_flags when the user wants that checklist'), and default behavior for the optional weekId. Nothing about selection 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.