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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — accent- and typo-tolerant matching and the shape of the return payload — but says nothing about ambiguous/multiple matches, result limits, or what happens when nothing is found.

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 short sentences with zero filler: what it finds first, what it returns second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only resolver with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, matching behavior and return type. It stops just short of telling the agent how to use the ids downstream, which is the one thing left implicit.

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 includes examples for query and the league enum, so the description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 resource (NBA and NFL players/teams) and a specific lookup mechanism (name or abbreviation), plus what comes back (numeric player_id or team_id). It is distinguishable from the analytics-oriented siblings, though the verb 'Find' is generic enough that the differentiation comes mostly from the domain nouns.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the id-resolution entry point before calling player_profile or team_profile, but the description never says so. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement and no mention of how the returned ids feed the sibling tools.

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