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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact not present in structured data: it does not consume calculation quota, which matters for budgeting calls to the sibling calculators.

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 with zero waste; the enumerated resources are front-loaded and the quota note follows as a short qualifier. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the zero-parameter schema needs no explanation. The description covers what is listed and the quota behavior; only the relationship to the calculate_* siblings could be made more explicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals a parameterless enumeration tool rather than suggesting any input is required.

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 (List) and specific resources (leagues, seasons, filing statuses, team codes) scoped to four named leagues' tax calculators. An agent can tell this is a reference/enumeration tool distinct from the calculate_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this should be called to discover accepted inputs before invoking calculate_nhl_tax or equivalent_nhl_salary. There is no explicit 'call this before calculating' instruction and no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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