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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint — data is unavailable before game start — but says nothing about live-updating vs. final statistics, partial availability during play, or response shape.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the availability constraint. No filler; slightly terse rather than padded.

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 3-required-param lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it returns and when it becomes available. It is adequate but thin: it does not clarify whether statistics update live, whether the call should be repeated during a game, or what granularity of player stats to expect.

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%: sport enum, league slugs with guidance to call list_leagues, and event_id provenance (get_live_events/get_events/get_schedule) are all documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at supported sports and omits hockey, which the enum includes, 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?

The description states a specific resource (team totals and player statistics for a single game) and the domain it applies to, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_plays, get_event, and get_team_roster. It is clear but never explicitly names the alternative tools an agent might confuse it with.

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?

'Not available before kickoff' is an implied when-to-use condition that prevents futile pre-game calls. However, there is no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over get_event, get_plays, or get_live_events, and no statement of what prerequisites (e.g., a completed or in-progress game) are needed beyond kickoff.

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