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 genuinely new behavior: results are newest-first, paging is cursor-based via next_cursor, and access is gated to "Basic plan and above" — a real constraint an agent can't read off the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the usage trigger. The first sentence is dense but each clause adds real information (content types, ordering, filters, paging); the plan-tier note is short and useful rather than filler.

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 seven optional parameters, an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields don't: ordering, cursor-based paging, plan gating and the intended question type. Minor residual gap — it doesn't clarify the days-versus-since precedence, though the schema itself covers that.

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%, with per-parameter ranges, defaults, formats and examples already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the filter dimensions (time, impact, position, team) and cursor paging without adding syntax or interaction rules (e.g. how since and days combine) beyond what the schema already says.

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 ("Returns the league-wide NFL news feed across every tracked player"), enumerates the content types covered (signings, trades, cuts, injuries, depth-chart moves), and fixes the ordering (newest first). The phrase "league-wide ... across every tracked player" implicitly separates it from the player-scoped sibling get_player_news, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Explicitly frames the use case: "Use it for 'what happened today/this week' or a team's or position's latest news." That is a clear positive trigger, but there is no exclusion guidance — nothing says when to prefer get_player_news or request_news_scrape instead, so the agent must infer the boundary from the word "league-wide."

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