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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing a cost (5 credits) and the output contents (GSAX, high-danger save%, rolling 10-game windows, rest days). It also flags a semantic caveat about goalie expected goals covering all strengths. Remaining gaps (rate limits, credit refunds) are minor.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and the return shape before cost. Every sentence carries content, though the listing of return columns is dense and slightly overlaps what the output schema covers.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description supplies the essentials: trigger, sort options, min-games behavior, credit cost and a caveat on expected-goal scope. Coverage of multi-league behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 all six parameters including the leagues enum and season format are already documented by the schema. The description restates the games-played filter and sort metrics (gsax already defined in the schema), adding little beyond the structured fields; 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 (returns a goalie leaderboard), names the ranking/comparison use case, and lists the exact sort metrics. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_player_stats and get_skater_season_stats, which cover a different position group.

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?

"Use when ranking goalies or comparing goalie performance" gives clear positive usage context and the min-games filter is described. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when-not to use it (e.g., vs. get_player_stats for skaters, or league/team filtering routes), so routing guidance is incomplete.

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