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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real behavioral context a caller needs: pagination mechanics ('follow next_offset'), the fact that pages are chronological, that a season exceeds one page, and the 10-credit cost. It stops short of describing failure modes or rate limits, but this is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the selection condition, then filter options, then pagination and cost. Every clause carries information an agent needs; 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?

Output schema exists so return values are covered elsewhere; the description supplies the operational details an agent needs to actually page through a season and budget credits. No meaningful gap remains for an 8-parameter, zero-required read tool.

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 the combination logic the schema only hints at ('game, or by season plus a team or player') plus the chronological page ordering, which tells the agent how offset behaves in practice. It does not explain strength or league semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('every shot attempt with rink coordinates, shot type, strength, shooter and goalie') and explicitly positions it against an alternative ('rather than a list of events'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_plays and get_line_movement.

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?

Gives the when-to-use condition up front ('Use when you want shot locations rather than a list of events') and spells out the two valid filter shapes: by game, or by season plus team or player. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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