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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful method context — the numbers are 'adjusted' via 'measured multipliers from graded contests' — and names the returned fields (20-Max number, contest number, change). It does not cover auth, rate limits, or whether contest_type changes recompute or merely rescale.

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 tightly written sentences; the purpose is front-loaded and the output summary follows. The parenthetical contest-type list mildly duplicates the schema enum, but it is brief and never buries the lead.

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 partially compensates by naming what is shown (base number, contest number, change). For a six-parameter read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage, that is close to sufficient, though it stops short of describing sort/limit interplay or pagination.

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 all six parameters are already documented, including enum meanings and the slate_id default. The description only glosses the contest_type enum ('20-Max base' etc.), adding no new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — projected DraftKings ownership for one slate adjusted to a contest type — and enumerates the adjustment modes (20-Max base, 150-Max, 3-Max, Single Entry). The 'MLB' + ownership + contest qualifier cleanly separates it from sibling invoke_nfl_ownership_by_contest and from invoke_mlb_projections.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (retrieve ownership projections for a slate/contest type), and the schema points at mlb_list_slates for slate_id, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternative tools. An agent must infer that this supplements rather than replaces invoke_mlb_projections.

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