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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: pages are chronological, a season exceeds one page so next_offset must be followed, and each call costs 10 credits. Lacks only auth/error semantics, so a 4 rather than 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 tight sentences: trigger first, filter modes second, pagination and cost last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (when to use this vs. an event list) is front-loaded.

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, return values need no explanation. The description covers the remaining decision-critical gaps for this tool: filter combinations, pagination depth and ordering, and the credit cost.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the useful combination logic the schema only hints at – 'filter by game, OR by season plus a team or player' – clarifying which parameters pair with which. Strength and league filters aren't elaborated, keeping it at 4.

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+resource ('every shot attempt with rink coordinates') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling that returns 'a list of events' (get_plays). An agent can distinguish this from get_plays without opening either 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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use trigger ('shot locations rather than a list of events') and enumerates the valid filter modes: by game, or by season plus team or player. The alternative (event list) is named, so routing is unambiguous.

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