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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing the credit cost ('Costs 2 credits'), the adjustment methodology (field strength, recency weighting), and the past-date capability. The one gap is it doesn't mention the default result cap or ordering stability, though limit is documented in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the use case, followed by the rating interpretation and the historical option, with the cost noted last. No filler sentences and every clause contributes.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers use case, metric semantics, historical mode, and cost. It could be slightly more complete by noting default league/limit behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and all four parameters (as_of, limit, league, min_rounds) are fully described there, so the description's note about passing as_of largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 verb+resource ('our strokes-versus-field rating for every player') with scope ('active in the past year') and ordering ('best first'), which clearly separates it from sibling stats/leaderboard tools. The interpretation rule for a 2.0 rating further nails down what the resource actually means.

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?

'Use for who is playing best' gives an explicit triggering question, and 'Pass as_of for the ratings on a past date' covers the historical case. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool (e.g., get_player_stats or get_leaders) as the alternative, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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