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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious semantics beyond that: stale reports can be returned, an empty list is not proof of health, and the current flag is not a real-time indicator. It says nothing about paging behavior despite the limit and cursor parameters.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the prerequisite and the result caveats. Dense but every sentence carries meaning; the extreme terseness of the phrasing borders on terse shorthand, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risk (misreading stale or empty injury data) but omits pagination semantics and says nothing about what a report record contains, which leaves the caller guessing after the first call.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains that team_id is an injury-team identifier produced by a source=availability search, but limit and cursor are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a specific resource: stored injury/availability reports, and the required team identifier shape. It distinguishes the tool implicitly from siblings such as get_team_squad by narrowing to injury reporting, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 a concrete prerequisite: a source=availability search must first be run to obtain the injury-team: ID. That is real when/how-to guidance, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives for the case where the caller wants current squad or fixture data instead.

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