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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: no credentials are needed, the call is a prerequisite gate for query_table, and it emits a runnable example URL. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior, but the safety and auth profile is well covered.

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 dense paragraph with the payload description front-loaded and the critical usage rule in the final sentence, which lands where it will be read. Slightly overpacked with one list, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value disclosure itself and does so thoroughly: field types, filter syntax, page-size limits, primary key, and an example URL. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be 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 0% and neither parameter is meaningfully explained. 'One table' loosely implies the table argument, but the league enum (nfl/nba/mlb/nhl/pga/dfs/reference) is never addressed, and the operators/filters described in the text belong to query_table, not to this tool's inputs — so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('full contract for one table') and enumerates the concrete payload: fields with types, accepted filters with operators, page-size limits, primary key, and an example URL. It also names the sibling it pairs with (query_table), so an agent can place it in the workflow 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?

Explicit sequencing rule — 'Always call this before query_table' — plus a hard negative: 'filters not listed here are rejected.' That tells the agent both when to call it and what breaks if it skips the call, with no inference required.

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