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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses matching behavior (exact normalized match preferred, case-insensitive contains fallback), refers to matchType in the response, and reduces ambiguity by stating rows match scan_props. It does not mention response format details or error cases, but covers the most important behavioral traits.

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 core purpose and scope, then the key matching detail and a clear usage condition. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter reader with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (rows like scan_props), how filtering works, and when to choose it. The only implicit dependency is familiarity with scan_props, which is acceptable given sibling context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the 'name' parameter behaves (normalized vs. contains matching, fallback logic) and clarifies that 'sport' scopes the board. This goes beyond the schema's basic type labels.

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 action ('find active props for a player') with clear scope ('across today's board for a sport') and explicitly differentiates from scan_props by the filter dimension ('by name ... instead of stat'). The title and description are mutually reinforcing and unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this when' condition — 'you know the player but not which game/event they're in' — and implicitly contrasts with scan_props ('instead of stat'), giving the agent a clear decision rule among siblings.

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