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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency need no restatement. The description adds only the D-I scope as behavioral context; it says nothing about aggregation method, season, or data vintage that annotations do not cover.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler, and the scope ('across D-I') is front-loaded ahead of the optional filter. Nothing here could be cut without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is trivially simple. Still, the description omits the sport name, the meaning of 'position' statistics, and the conference value format, leaving real gaps for a one-parameter read tool.

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% for the single conference parameter, so the description must compensate. It does establish that the filter is optional and defaults to unfiltered D-I, but it gives no hint about expected format (conference name vs. ID) or matching behavior.

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 ('Get position statistics') plus a scope qualifier ('across D-I'). The basketball domain is carried only by the title, and no sibling such as get_football_position_stats or get_conference_stats is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by conference' implies the two usage modes (all D-I vs. one conference), which is useful context. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer get_conference_stats or get_football_position_stats instead, so the agent must guess between near-neighbors.

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