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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a cost of 10 credits and the historical coverage window (2010-11 onward), which an agent needs for planning but cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and filtering, coverage, and cost follow. The field enumeration sentence is dense but each clause carries real information, so it stays efficient rather than padded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it adds the cost and the historical cutoff that the structured fields omit. Complete enough for correct invocation, though it could mention the absence of pre-2010-11 data as a routing signal to other tools.

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 three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the filtering intent ('Filter to one team or player') without adding format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 scope ('every player's shifts in one NHL game') and enumerates the returned fields (period, start/end, duration, boxscore TOI, plus/minus). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plays and get_situation_time, which cover different slices of game data.

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 trigger ('Use for who was on the ice and when') and states the narrowing options ('Filter to one team or player') plus a data-availability boundary ('NHL games from 2010-11 on'). It does not name a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of explicit when-not routing.

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