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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing data provenance ('market blended with our sim') and the metrics returned, which is meaningful behavioral context for interpreting the numbers, though it omits freshness/definition of 'current week' and return format details.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the key parameter caveat. The parenthetical keeps metric provenance compact; nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it names the four key outputs (win probability, public pick share, EV, future cost). It is nearly complete, but leaves out row/column ordering, units, and how the limit interacts with the 'plan limit' mentioned only in the schema.

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 67%, and the description compensates precisely where the schema is silent: used_teams is unexplained in the schema but clarified here as 'exclude teams you already used.' limit and entries are already documented in the schema, so no further semantics are needed.

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 resource and scope — a 'Survivor pool board for the current week' — and enumerates exactly what the board contains (win probability, public pick share, EV, future cost of burning each team). No sibling tool covers survivor pools, so an agent can identify this immediately without opening the schema.

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 context 'survivor pool board' implies when to reach for it, and it tells the agent to pass used_teams to exclude already-used teams. However, it never states when to use this versus other NFL decision tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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