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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds the 2026 season scoping and that roster availability is surfaced, but says nothing about whether the profile 404s for unknown teams, whether availability is a flag or a list, or anything else beyond 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?

A single short sentence with the resource and season front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity costs meaning rather than helping, though, since the space saved is not spent on the ambiguity in "roster availability".

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, with a required-but-undocumented team_id and an unclear behavioral boundary against get_football_team_roster, the definition leaves gaps an agent would trip over before a first correct call.

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 single parameter team_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing about its meaning. The description does not compensate — it never says whether team_id is the internal ID returned by resolve_football_team, nor whether it is a conference-scoped or ESPN-style identifier, leaving the only required input effectively undocumented.

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 verb and resource ("Get a 2026 football program profile") and pins the season to 2026, which is useful. However, "roster availability" is ambiguous — it is unclear whether this returns roster data, a boolean of whether a roster exists, or a count — and with siblings get_football_team_roster and get_team present, the description never clarifies how this profile differs from a full roster fetch.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to pick this over get_football_team_roster, resolve_football_team, or get_team, and no stated prerequisite such as resolving a team first. The agent must infer selection purely from the name and the vague phrase "roster availability".

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