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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by explaining the derived field: 'leverage_gap above 0 means the field owns the stack less than its ceiling rank,' which is non-obvious. It doesn't say anything about slate scoping or default behavior when slate_id is omitted.

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?

The column listing is dense but earns its place since no output schema exists, and the actionable guidance is placed at the end rather than buried. It is a single long sentence plus two short ones, with no filler.

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 field enumeration is essential and present. However, for a 5-parameter tool with zero required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent guessing about slate selection, contest_type filtering, and default sort/limit behavior.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It never explains team, limit, slate_id, or contest_type, and gives no hint about when each sort_by mode is appropriate, even though sorting drives how the board is read.

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 the specific resource ('one row per team on a DraftKings NFL classic slate') and enumerates the exact columns returned, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It is clearly a data-board tool, distinguishable from siblings like invoke_nfl_player_pool or invoke_nfl_optimizer, though it never states the verb explicitly.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance is given: 'Use it to pick QB stacks before nfl_optimizer,' which tells the agent both the purpose and the order relative to a named sibling. It lacks a when-not condition, and doesn't mention other stack-related siblings such as invoke_nfl_sim_picks.

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