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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world source, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the season (2026/27), the upstream provider, and the per-90 normalization basis. It says nothing about default scope when no club is supplied, result ordering direction, or volume/pagination.

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 front-loaded sentence that puts the verb, season, source and normalization before the metric parenthetical. Efficient and free of filler, though the parenthetical list is dense and could be trimmed since the schema enumerates the sort options.

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?

With only two optional parameters and full annotations, the definition is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description never states the shape of the 'raw telemetry' payload, the default behavior with no club filter, or ranking direction. Those gaps are modest rather than fatal.

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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters ('club' and the 'sort' enum) are already fully documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's metric list adds light meaning by mapping the per-90 families to the sort concepts, but it omits 'goals' and 'Total Shots' fidelity against the enum values, so it does not extend the schema materially.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precisely scoped resource: raw 2026/27 API-Sports Pro per-90 player prop telemetry, with the five metric families enumerated. An agent knows exactly what data comes back, though the description never contrasts it with plausible siblings like get_bet_builder_stats or audit_fpl_players.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus the player-stat siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The metric list implies a per-90 telemetry use case, but selection between this and get_bet_builder_stats is left entirely to inference.

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