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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds materially: authentication requirement ('stat-api sign-in or API key'), quota consumption, typo tolerance, and result ordering by match quality — none of which appear in structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope, alternative, and operational caveats. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description still characterizes the return ('player rows ordered by match quality'). Combined with auth, quota, and league-limitation notes, 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the 'name' parameter (fuzzy, typo-tolerant) and effectively explains why 'league' only accepts nba, but says nothing about 'limit' or its default/maximum beyond what the raw schema shows.

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 mechanism and resource: 'Fuzzy player-name search (typo-tolerant)' and clarifies scope with 'Currently NBA only'. It also distinguishes itself from query_table by naming that sibling as the route for non-NBA leagues.

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 routing: use this for typo-tolerant name lookup, and for other leagues use query_table with a name filter. This is an unambiguous when/when-not with the alternative named.

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