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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful context about the return shape ('shows the 150-Max number, the contest number and the change') and the multiplier-source semantics (measured vs research prior), but omits auth needs, rate limits, and any slate-scoping behavior.

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 core purpose and no filler. The output-content and multiplier sentences are compact and each adds information, though the mechanics could be ordered slightly more clearly.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should do substantially more. It covers contest_type and sketches the return fields, but leaves five parameters undocumented and provides no pagination, ordering, or filter semantics an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It documents only contest_type and its enum values; team, limit, sort_by, position, and slate_id are left entirely unexplained, so most parameters remain opaque to the agent.

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+resource: 'Projected DraftKings NFL ownership for one classic slate adjusted to a contest type.' The sport and 'ownership by contest' scope separate it from siblings like invoke_nfl_projections or invoke_nfl_player_pool, though it never explicitly contrasts with invoke_mlb_ownership_by_contest or other shared-sport tools.

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?

It explains what a contest type is and enumerates the four values, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g. invoke_nfl_sim_picks, invoke_nfl_optimizer, invoke_nfl_player_pool) and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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