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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: results are grouped by team by default, the team_id filter changes the report to a 'complete' team-level view, and the dataset can be empty in the off-season. No freshness or rate-limit detail, but meaningful disclosure nonetheless.

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 filler; the default behavior and the caveat about the off-season come first, and the parametric instruction follows. Every clause carries information.

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 carries the burden of describing returns; it conveys the grouping and emptiness behavior but says nothing about what an injury entry actually contains or about ordering/freshness. Adequate for a small read tool, but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantic effect of team_id (switches from league-wide grouped output to one team's complete report), which the schema's 'Team id from list_teams' line does not convey.

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 and resource ('Current injury report') plus its scope (grouped by team, empty in the off-season). The team_id sentence distinguishes the filtered mode from the default grouped mode, so an agent can tell exactly what it gets without opening the schema.

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?

'Pass team_id for that team's complete report' implicitly tells the agent when to use the optional parameter, and the off-season note warns of empty results. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. get_team_roster or get_news) or states a when-not-to-use condition, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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