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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a real behavioral constraint beyond them: only pundits and outlets with a public page are returned, which warns an agent that some known entities will legitimately be absent. No pagination or result-shape detail, but the coverage constraint is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the lookup purpose, followed by the call-ordering rule and the scope caveat. No filler sentences and nothing redundant.

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?

For a small two-parameter lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, required call ordering, and a scope limitation. It does not describe the returned match list (single vs multiple matches, ambiguity handling), which is a minor remaining gap.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including the enum values and the 'part of one' example. The description's 'by full or partial name' adds only marginal confirmation, 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (the slug for a pundit, outlet, NFL team, player, or prediction type) with the accepted input (full or partial name). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that the other tools take slugs, never names.

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?

Explicit call ordering: 'Call this first whenever the user names someone', plus the reason (the other tools take slugs, never names). This is a clear when-to-use rule with the alternative behavior named.

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