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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds substantial value by disclosing rate limiting, the exact output shape, the meaning of 'status' values, snapshotId, projectionCapability vs effectiveProjection, contextCapability, and the enabled=false tier restriction. This goes well beyond annotations, though it doesn't discuss error handling or authentication, which are reasonable omissions for a read-only list endpoint.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then methodically explains the output structure and field meanings, and ends with explicit usage guidance. It is dense but not bloated, and the structure is logical and scannable.

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 zero-input tool, the description provides an extremely thorough explanation of the return value, including nested field meanings, status semantics, and the distinction between structural capability and current availability. It also covers when to use the tool and the enabled flag. There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the response, and it succeeds admirably. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 per the rubric. The description fully explains the output fields, which is not strictly parameter semantics but compensates for the lack of an output schema, giving the agent complete understanding of what to expect. The schema coverage is 100% vacuously, so no extra input guidance is needed.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource statement: 'List every sport supported by Flash Props API with its live status and how deep the Flash model goes.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on sport discovery and model capability, and explicitly tells agents not to hard-code sports. It is unambiguous and distinctive.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'to discover valid sport ids, or to check which sport actually has projections/context before asking for them' vs 'if you already know the sport id and just want its props.' It also instructs to call this tool instead of hard-coding sports, giving a clear decision rule.

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