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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real substance beyond them: default void exclusion, cursor pagination, a streaming/memory warning, and a concrete free-plan ceiling (one page, up to 100 sampled rows from the last 7 days). No mention of rate limits or auth, but the plan constraint is disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the row shape an agent needs first, then behavioural caveats, then plan limits. The field enumeration is long but informative; nothing is wasted or buried.

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 12-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the row shape, pagination model, default filtering, and plan limits — enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around filter interaction (e.g., whether date filters are required) but the schema covers those fields thoroughly.

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 every parameter including cursor, include_void, and the date fields is already documented. The description's remarks on voids and cursoring largely restate the schema, so it sits at the baseline rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 resource and its shape: one flat row per graded line, with an enumerated set of columns (opening/closing line, tier, opponent, home/away, rest days, minutes, actual value, result). This differentiates it in substance from siblings like get_results or get_game_logs, though it never names those tools 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?

Gives a clear usage context ('for building a prop model') plus operational guidance: voids are excluded unless opted in, page with cursor, persist rows rather than holding them in conversation. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming an alternative sibling for non-training queries.

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