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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the Desk Pass requirement, the degraded free-tier response ("no chance in it"), the `deskPass.message` field the agent must relay to the person, and what extra content a Pass unlocks. Gating, degradation and return content are all surfaced before the call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then outputs, then usage, then the Pass caveat — a sensible order with no filler. It is on the long side at four dense sentences, but each carries distinct information (outputs, routing, gating, fallback).

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so — listing the projected place, title chance, playoff chance and live playoff report. Combined with the Pass/free-tier explanation and input routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by stating the selection logic between parameters — team alone, league plus area, or neither for the member's own team — which complements the schema's per-field mutual-exclusion notes with the overall routing rule.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — projects how a league table could finish from remaining matches and line forecasts — and enumerates the outputs (likely place, chance to finish first, playoff chance). It is clearly a projection rather than a live-standings read, though it never names the adjacent query_league_standings or query_team_forecast tools it must be distinguished from.

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?

"Call it for a team's playoff chances or what it needs" gives an explicit invocation condition, and the three input routings (team, league+area, neither) are spelled out. It falls short of naming alternatives or stating when *not* to use it versus the plain standings/forecast siblings.

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