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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: tier-dependent response shape (Free/Builder vs Pro), dependency on a registered Flash pack, and the honest empty context behavior with no fabricated data. This meaningfully informs an agent about edge cases.

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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core function, then covers tier differences, empty behavior, discovery guidance, and sibling routing. It is structured with clear 'when to use' and 'when not to use' sections, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job summarizing return content: basic context shape, per-market baselines, recent form, splits, and the Pro-only dense map/game log. It also covers empty-result behavior. It stops short of detailing the exact response structure, but for selection and invocation purposes it is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters, including the default sport value and exact-match preference. The description adds context about pack registration and sport-native splits but does not substantially extend parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it retrieves season context (per-market baselines, recent form, sport-native splits) from the sport's Flash pack. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it returns NO posted lines and pointing to find_player_props and get_prop_evidence for those needs.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use examples ('what is this player averaging', 'how has this player been playing lately') and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives. It also instructs using list_sports first when discovering which sports advertise deep context, which is actionable routing information.

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