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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious constraint that weekly lookups need scope=weekly plus a week, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or coverage of unpublished projections.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: the primary capability first, the weekly-mode precondition second. Every clause 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 no explanation, and the weekly constraint is a valuable addition. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits guidance on the season, sport, model, and scoring_format parameters, leaving notable gaps.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden but only clarifies three things: player accepts an ID or slug, scope=weekly, and week. It leaves sport, model, season, and scoring_format entirely to the schema's enums/types.

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+resource ('look up one player's published season projection... or weekly football projection') and identifies the lookup keys (player ID or slug). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling rankings tools by resource type, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional for the weekly path ('require scope=weekly and a week number'), which tells the agent when weekly mode is applicable. It stops short of naming the rankings siblings as alternatives for comparison-type queries.

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