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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds material context beyond them: the upstream source (ESPN public API) with an explanation that stats.wnba.com blocks automated access, plus the payment model ($0.002 USDC per successful call, failed calls not charged). That billing behavior is decision-relevant for an agent. It stops short of describing pagination limits or rate/latency behavior.

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?

The definition leads with the resource and its fields, then coverage range, source, and pricing — a sensible front-loaded order with no filler sentences. The stat enumeration is long but each item maps to a real column, so it earns its space; it's slightly dense but readable.

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 an output schema present, return-shape explanation isn't required, and every input parameter is described. The description covers scope, temporal coverage, data provenance, and cost — nearly everything an agent needs to decide and call. Only minor gaps remain, such as how pagination limits (page 1–40, limit 1–50) constrain how far back a full leaderboard can be walked.

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 all six parameters are already documented in structured data — the baseline for this dimension. The description adds a little semantic grounding by listing the fields that map to the 'sort' option and stating the season range (2006 to now), but it doesn't clarify anything the schema leaves ambiguous (page/sort interaction, enum values are not formal enums).

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 a specific verb and resource — WNBA player season statistics as a sorted leaderboard — and enumerates the exact stat columns returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as dev_nba_stats (NBA) and dev_espn_wnba (team/scoreboard), so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'sorted leaderboard' plus the sort enum hints at ranking use cases, and 'Regular season or playoffs, 2006 to now' bounds the data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or recommendation of an alternative sibling for non-leaderboard WNBA needs.

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