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 genuinely new behavioral context: a 5-credit cost, the 2010-11 season floor, and the fact that the returned stat set includes power play/shorthanded production, shooting%, faceoff%, and TOI. No pagination or defaulting caveats beyond the schema, which is the only gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then answers question, then contents, then constraints and cost. Every sentence carries information, though the stat-category enumeration is somewhat redundant against the existing output schema.

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 fully-defaulted, zero-required-parameter list endpoint with an output schema and readOnly annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to use it, cost, season coverage, and the shape of the leaderboard. Nothing material is missing.

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%, including enum values and the nuanced default-season behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the sort metrics ('points, goals, assists, plus/minus, or shots') and the games-played filter but adds no syntax, units, or edge-case meaning the schema does not already carry.

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 leaderboard' of skater scoring stats) and scopes it to ranking/comparison use, which cleanly separates it from get_player_stats (individual lookups) and get_goalie_stats (different population). An agent can pick it correctly without opening the 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?

'Use when ranking skaters or comparing scoring' gives a clear positive trigger condition. It does not, however, name the sibling it is not (e.g. get_player_stats for a single player's line) or state exclusions, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not bar.

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