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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds useful operational context: the default team filter, the 30-minute refresh cadence, and the DraftKings scoring basis. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, but the added cadence and default-scope disclosure meaningfully exceed the annotations.

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?

Purpose and the default-scope rule are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The long enumerated field list is dense but still readable and avoids 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 description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the report fields, plus discloses default scope, expansion options, and refresh cadence. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 description coverage is 100% and the param descriptions already explain team format, limit, and all_teams semantics. The description's param guidance ('Pass team, player or all_teams true for more') largely restates what the schema provides, so this is the baseline 3.

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+resource ('NHL injury report') and enumerates the concrete fields returned, including an impact score and pricing flag. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling injury tools for other leagues (nba/nfl/wnba/mma injuries) by league scope.

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?

Explains the default scoping ('shows only teams that play today') and how to widen it ('Pass team, player or all_teams true for more'). It does not name competing alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is unambiguous.

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