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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the counting convention ('one voice per pundit, their latest call standing'), the median-margin semantics, and that the final score appears only once played.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, followed by the same field details as the schema. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the run-on aggregation clause is slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does list the returned aggregates (counts, median margin, per-pundit calls, final score). It is nearly complete, with only the exact response shape/pagination left implicit.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description restates the week ranges (also in the schema) and clarifies that either team's slug is acceptable, a small addition but not much beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('what the pundits predicted for one NFL game') and then enumerates the exact aggregates returned (side counts, median margin, per-pundit score calls, final score). This is clearly distinct from siblings like pundit_record and leaderboard, which cover different scopes.

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 explains how to identify the game (seasonYear, week, either team's slug) but never states when to reach for this tool over pundit_record or leaderboard. Usage is implied by the resource rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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