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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value beyond them: a 10-credit cost, the 2019-20+ odds coverage window, and the fact that goalie starts are derived from play-by-play and therefore absent for unplayed games. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the use case and followed by prerequisites, coverage caveats, and cost. Nothing is wasted, though the 'with their time on ice' clause slightly restates what the return content already implies.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent faces: ID sourcing, credit cost, and data-availability limits by date and game status. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining where game_id comes from (get_games or get_schedule) and implying its scope. The league parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 the specific resource ('one game') and enumerates exactly what it returns: both teams' full info, all betting odds, and starting goalies with time on ice. That enumeration distinguishes it from siblings like get_odds and get_goalie_stats without needing to name them 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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use ('Use when you need everything about one game'), tells the agent where to obtain the required ID (get_games or get_schedule), and gives a when-not: goalie starts are unavailable for upcoming games. This is close to ideal routing guidance.

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