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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the 5-credit cost and the non-obvious 'possession is 5v5 only' scope caveat, which an agent could otherwise misread as all-situations data.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, and each carries distinct information: payload contents, the 5v5 scope caveat, the required parameter plus fallback, and the credit cost. Nothing is redundant.

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 need no explanation. With all three parameters documented, the safety profile in annotations, and the description adding cost and scope caveats, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 team, league, and season are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates the required 'team' abbreviation and the list_teams fallback but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('full details for one team') and enumerates the exact payload: record, goals for/against, league rank, and 5v5 possession metrics. An agent can separate this from get_standings or get_skater_season_stats 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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use when you need full details for one team' trigger and routes the agent to list_teams if the abbreviation is unknown. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling (e.g. get_standings for league-wide tables), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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