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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations do not: historical franchises are excluded from results, and the call costs 1 credit. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the usage condition, then appends the scope exclusions and the cost note. Every clause carries information an agent can act on; there is 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?

For a zero-required-parameter list tool with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description supplies the essentials: purpose, cost, and data-scope exclusions. The one notable omission is any hint that the tool spans eight leagues rather than just the NHL, which matters for cross-league questions.

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%, with league, division, and conference all documented and two enum-backed, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions filtering by league, division, or conference; the fields it lists (city, conference, division, arena) are result fields, not parameters, so it adds no parameter meaning 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 concrete resource (team list) with its return fields (city, conference, division, arena) and names the excluded historical franchises (ATL, ARI). It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, none of which list teams. However, it frames the tool as 'all 32 active NHL teams' while the schema accepts eight leagues (pwhl, ohl, whl, qmjhl, echl, ahl, ushl), so the stated scope under-describes the tool.

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 you need team abbreviations' gives a clear triggering condition, and 'Cheapest tool at 1 credit' adds cost context useful for tool selection. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, but no sibling overlaps enough for that to be a serious gap.

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