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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds valuable content detail about what is returned (win probability/spread shift, teammate minutes and target/carry share increases). It doesn't discuss pagination or result size, but the substantive behavior is disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by enumerating the concrete outputs, and the alternate mode is stated last. 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 description carries the burden of explaining returns, which it does adequately by naming the key metrics. Minor gaps remain around output structure and result size, but an agent has enough to call it 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by spelling out what inspecting a player's absence yields (who absorbs minutes/targets and projection movement) and tying omission to the league report.

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 and resource: it returns what a player absence changes (win probability, spread shift, teammate usage shifts) and offers a distinct league-wide injury report mode. An agent can distinguish both modes without opening the schema.

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 explains the two invocation modes: pass player_id for a specific absence, omit it for the full league injury report. It doesn't name when to prefer a sibling tool like player_profile or defense_vs_position, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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