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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral content by disclosing what each mode returns: win-probability and spread shifts plus the teammates whose minutes or target/carry share rises.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by return behavior, then a single exclusion clause. Three compact sentences with no filler and clear priority ordering.

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 explains return values for both modes, which is the essential missing structured information. It is slightly thin on the shape of the league injury report itself, but nothing needed to select or invoke the tool is absent.

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% and the description's account of player_id largely restates the schema's own text (omit for the league report, use for absence consequences). With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies; the description adds emphasis but little new syntax or constraint.

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 (league injury report / absence consequences) with two clearly delineated modes: league-level report and player_id-level impact analysis. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming player_profile as the tool for a player's own injury status.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use clause plus two concrete user-phrasing examples ('Lakers injury report', 'what if Haliburton is out'). It also provides an explicit exclusion and names the alternative (player_profile) for the case this tool should not handle.

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