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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent profile, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the record is a request routed to maintainers rather than an immediate team creation, and it must be user-initiated. It does not mention duplicate submissions or what the caller gets back, which is a minor gap given idempotentHint=false is already declared.

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, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the consent precondition. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 2-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers what it does, who consumes it, and the conversational gate. What is missing is post-call behavior — whether the player should be told anything or whether repeat requests are deduplicated.

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 both parameters (team, note) are already fully documented with length limits and intent. The description adds no syntax, format, or normalization guidance (e.g. league naming conventions) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Records a player's request for a sports team that ... doesn't cover yet,' and names the consumer ('the people who maintain the database'). It implicitly separates itself from team_roster by scoping to teams that don't exist yet, but never names a sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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?

'Only after the player says they'd like it added' is an explicit, actionable precondition that tells the agent exactly when to fire. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use team_roster to check coverage first), which keeps it short of a 5.

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