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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes two useful facts beyond that: the data is third-party sourced and reflects 'current' status, implying freshness but not how fresh or how often refreshed. Return fields, injury status categories and pagination behavior are undisclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key qualifiers front-loaded. It is slightly telegraphic (no verb phrase), which reads more like a label than a description, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It says nothing about what an injury record contains (player, status, body part, report date) or whether limits truncate silently, leaving the agent to infer result shape before calling.

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 team, league, limit and user_request are all already documented in structured form, and the description adds no syntax or edge-case meaning. The league enumeration in prose merely restates the enum. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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?

Names a specific resource (injury reports), qualifies it as 'current' and 'third-party', and enumerates the covered leagues, so the agent can tell it apart from stat-oriented siblings like get_team_stats or get_game_logs. The verb is only implied by the name rather than stated in the description, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no note on prerequisites, and no exclusions. The one usable signal is the league scope, which is already in the schema's enum, so the description adds essentially nothing about selection.

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