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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: precedence rules for reading the response (call, then note, then chip and hours), that chip is a threshold check that does not replace the call, the DOME display rule when a roof is confirmed open, that afterTip is a quiet note rather than a flag, and licensing terms (free with attribution, not for training). Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 and input rules are front-loaded, which is good, but the text then drifts into a long run of field-level notes with internal redundancy ('call is the weather call', chip explained twice by negation). Given there is no output schema, some of this earns its place, but it is longer than it needs to be for a two-parameter lookup.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so for most of them: call, chip.level/DOME behavior, afterTip, fantasy (140-char limit, non-normative), roof.status, changesSinceThursday, notFound, and bye. A few items (note, hours) are named without explanation, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the weekId format YYYY-wNN and the omit-for-current-week behavior. The description mainly repeats this ('Optional weekId; omit it for the current week') and adds only the 'pass team names not fantasy names' caveat, 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 a specific resource (published weather calls for NFL team codes) and a specific scope (one week), which separates it from a single-game tool like get_game. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it should be chosen over, so it stops short of a 5.

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 input guidance (pass team codes like ["PIT","HOU"], omit weekId for the current week) and a publisher constraint (no fantasy-platform connection), but never says when to use this instead of get_game, get_week_board, or get_changes. It notes changesSinceThursday exists 'since the Thursday board' without routing the agent to the dedicated sibling.

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