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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data is 'live' for the current 2026/27 season, which is useful freshness context, but says nothing about update cadence, snapshot vs. history, or whether all clubs are returned by default.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the four content categories with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by distinguishing injury, medical, ban, and suspension-tightrope data.

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 one-param, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what data comes back and for which season. The only gap is default unfiltered behavior (all clubs vs. none), which is minor.

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 100% — the single optional 'club' filter is fully documented as a name or slug. The description never mentions the filter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a precisely scoped resource: live 2026/27 Premier League injuries, medical return dates, red/cup bans, and FA 4-yellow-card suspension tightropes. No sibling tool covers availability, so the agent can route here without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is only implied by the domain ('injuries, bans, suspensions') — there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer get_predicted_lineup or audit_fpl_players instead, and no note that the result is a league-wide snapshot unless filtered. Adequate for a single-purpose tool but leaves routing to inference.

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