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 covered. The description does add genuine value by noting an empty list is a valid result when schedule data is not seeded, preventing the agent from treating an empty response as an error. It says nothing about pagination or how the limit interacts with results, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the caveat about empty results follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 described. But with three fully undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no guidance on team_id vs team_name selection, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently with non-default arguments.

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 three parameters, and the description never mentions limit, team_id, or team_name. Critically, it does not explain the relationship between team_id and team_name — both default to null — or what happens when neither is supplied, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 games for a team") with clear scope, so an agent knows this returns a game list for a team. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_team or get_team_roster, so the reader must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_football_team or get_team_roster. The only context is the generic 'for a team' framing, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is the right choice.

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