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 a real behavioral trait beyond them: the default result set is silently filtered to today's DK-slate teams unless parameters are passed. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination, which is minor here.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the default-scope caveat. Every clause carries information, with only the enumerated return-field list being arguably redundant given it appears nowhere else.

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 compensates by listing the fields the report returns, and it explains the default filtering behavior that would otherwise surprise an agent. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 each of the four parameters is documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces which parameters broaden the default scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., the ESPN-code note lives in the schema).

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 ('Current WNBA injury report') and enumerates the fields returned (player, team, status, estimated return, note), which no sibling name conveys. An agent can distinguish it from invoke_nba_injuries / invoke_nhl_injuries by the sport embedded in the name and the stated 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?

Explicitly states the default behavior (only teams on the DraftKings slates of the day) and how to widen it ('Pass team, player or all_teams true for more'). This tells the agent when the default is insufficient, though it never names a sibling alternative or an exclusion case.

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