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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real non-obvious context: the 10-credit cost, the at-least-one-identifier precondition, and offset-based pagination. Return-format detail is largely redundant since an output schema exists, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose then filters then preconditions then cost. Every clause carries information (event inventory, filter list, gating rule, pagination, price) with no filler.

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, mostly-optional query tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what the tool is for, the required-identifier rule, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is omitted.

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, but the description adds a semantic constraint absent from the schema (which declares zero required params): at least one of game_id, season, or player_id must be supplied, plus 'player (any role)' and 'offset' pagination semantics. That is meaningful meaning beyond the field-level docs.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('play-by-play events') and then enumerates the concrete payload (goals, shots, faceoffs, hits, rink coordinates, strength state, zone, players), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_shot_map or get_game_detail without opening any schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition clearly ('Use for play-by-play events') and gives a hard gating rule ('Requires at least one of game_id, season or player_id') plus pagination guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying when *not* to use it, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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