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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the return payload (record, ratings with league ranks, roster, last/next games) and notably that games carry a game_id, which signals follow-up chaining to find_game. It does not mention the season default or any pagination/size limits on the roster, leaving a small 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, both load-bearing: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second covers return contents and sibling routing. Trigger condition is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so concretely down to the game_id field. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so league, season and team_id are already fully documented, including the current-season default and the pointer to the search tool for team_id. The description adds only the framing that the profile is scoped to a single team's season, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb-and-resource pairing ('one team's season: its record, ratings, roster, recent and coming games') and enumerates exactly what the tool covers. The closing sentence names the two siblings it is not (rankings_and_ratings, head_to_head), so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user asks about one team's season') and follows with explicit exclusions naming the alternative tool for each excluded case. Both the when and the when-not are stated, which is the full bar for this dimension.

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