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

Annotations cover read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond them: it discloses the return shape (answer, table, page link), which is the kind of context annotations cannot convey, especially useful since there's no output schema.

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?

Two dense but well-structured sentences: the first front-loads capabilities, the second describes returns. It's information-rich rather than padded, though the capability list is long enough to verge on a feature dump.

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 single-parameter Q&A tool with no output schema, the description covers scope (leagues, stat categories), example phrasing is in the schema, and the return format is described. Nothing critical is missing; only question-phrasing constraints (e.g. the 200-char limit) go unmentioned.

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 includes example values for the single question parameter. The description adds league/scoping context that helps frame questions but doesn't add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description names a specific verb (answer a sports statistics question) and enumerates the scope precisely: leagues, stat types, splits, records. It's unambiguous what this tool does.

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?

No siblings exist, so there's no alternative to route away from. The description implies usage via the example question formats, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus not, or prerequisites for phrasing questions.

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