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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful extras the annotations don't carry: the paywall on window="recent" (last 10 games requires Pro) and the rank convention (1 = most allowed). Return shape is only loosely characterized.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and appendices the taxonomy, rank direction, and tier gating. No filler and nothing the agent must read twice.

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 correctly describes what comes back (per-game allowed by position group plus ranks). Given only one required parameter and full schema coverage, this is close to complete; a hint at team identification or default ordering would close the gap.

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 100% with enums on league and window, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description reinforces the position-group values per league and clarifies rank direction, but adds only modestly beyond the structured fields — baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: what each team allows per game, broken out by position group, with league ranks, and the exact position taxonomy per league. An agent can tell this apart from a generic team_profile call. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just under a 5.

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 (defensive matchup / pace analysis) and the free vs. Pro distinction on window="recent" is stated, which is genuinely actionable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like team_profile, player_splits_and_on_off, or game_projection, and no stated exclusions.

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