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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it cryptographically attests results with a post-quantum signed receipt, provides a verification URL, costs $0.10 USDC per call, and returns only leagues with recent activity. These details go well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is succinct and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some marketing phrasing like 'Cross-sport intelligence brief' is present but does not bloat the text. It avoids redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it defines the data scope (active leagues, recent scores), the condition for inclusion (recent activity), the cost, and the attestation mechanism. Nothing essential for an agent to decide to call it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description carries no burden of explaining parameter behavior. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add anything for parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving live and recent sports scores across multiple leagues (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL) in one call. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools like get_sports_nba_scores by covering all active leagues and by noting it returns only leagues with recent activity.

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?

The description specifies when to use this tool: 'when an agent needs sports context without knowing which leagues are in season.' This is clear and practical. It implicitly distinguishes from league-specific tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them or state when not to use it.

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