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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping notion of a 'current window' spanning past, live, and future games, but says nothing about pagination, default limits, or how far the window extends in either direction.

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 waste; the scope statement comes first and the alternative-tool routing second, which is the correct front-loading.

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 no output schema, the description does characterize the return set (recent/live/upcoming games) adequately, and annotations cover mutability. The one meaningful gap is that the boundary with get_live_events and the extent of the 'window' are never clarified.

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%, including enum meanings, the default limit, and the compact/full detail distinction, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what is already documented.

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 names the resource ('the league's current scoreboard window') and its scope ('recent, live and upcoming games'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from a static schedule tool. The verb is implied rather than stated, but the returned set is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use get_schedule for specific dates or weeks. However, it does not address the closely related sibling get_live_events, even though it advertises 'live' games, leaving the boundary between the two ambiguous.

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