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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: accent- and typo-tolerant matching, and the shape of the result (matching players and teams with ids and urls). It does not say how many matches are returned or how ambiguity/ranking is handled, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary trigger is front-loaded before the exclusion. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return contents (players and teams with numeric ids and page urls). For a two-parameter lookup tool with full annotation coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema documents both parameters and the enum. The description still adds meaning beyond it by disclosing that the query is accent- and typo-tolerant, which tells the agent it can pass loosely spelled names rather than needing exact strings.

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?

The description names the resource (NBA and NFL players and teams) and the concrete output (numeric ids and page urls), so the agent knows exactly what a call produces. It also distinguishes itself from the profile siblings by stating it is not for stats.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when you need a player_id or team_id') and a concrete unresolved-name scenario with real examples. It also names the alternatives and the condition that selects them: 'Not for stats: call player_profile or team_profile with the id.'

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