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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive return content (per-league offer counts, available stat sets, which leagues have history and graded results), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about result size, freshness window, or whether the listing is paginated, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns for a coverage call.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the actionable instruction ('Start here') is front-loaded before the content description. Every clause conveys distinct information about what the response contains.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: entry-point role plus the categories of data returned. The remaining gap is precision on what 'available stats' and 'offer counts' actually look like in a response, but that is a minor gap for an index-style tool.

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 the single user_request parameter is documented at length in the schema itself, so the description carries no burden here. The description adds no meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly: every league on the board, with offer counts, available stats, history flags and graded results. That is a specific enumeration rather than a restatement of 'get_coverage'. It stops short of naming a sibling it differs from (e.g. get_board_at or get_live_sports), so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'Start here'.

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?

'Start here' is an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent to call this before the other board/data tools, which is real when-to-use guidance. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it does not reach the 5 bar of stating when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for a narrower question.

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