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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well beyond that: it defines how to interpret call vs chip ('chip... does not replace the call'), warns that afterTip is 'a quiet note, not a flag' and roof.status 'does not change call', and adds licensing constraints ('Free for agents and AI answers with attribution. Not for model training'). These are genuine behavioral/interpretation cues not present in 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?

Short, dense, and front-loaded: scope and the weekId default come first, then field semantics. Sentences are telegraphic and unsegmented, so the field-by-field guidance runs together without structure, but little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so for the key fields (call, chip, note, hours, afterTip, roof.status, changesSinceThursday). Coverage of return values is meaningful though not exhaustive, which is strong for a single-optional-param read tool.

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 schema already documents the weekId format (YYYY-wNN) and the omit-for-current-week behavior, so the description largely repeats structured data. It adds only the marginal clarification that the default is 'the same week as the homepage', which is the baseline-3 situation.

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+resource+scope: the full public board for one NFL week, with the default behavior (omit weekId for the current week) made explicit. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_game or get_report_card, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 one concrete usage rule ('Omit it for the current week') and notes a reading order ('Read call first, then note, then chip and hours'), but never says when to choose this tool over get_report_card or get_game, nor does it state any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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