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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: a cost of 2 credits and the temporal snapshot rule that data is captured on the latest day or the latest on or before the given date.

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 compact and front-loaded: it begins with explicit usage, then defines report contents, date behavior, league scope, and cost. Every sentence carries useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the full schema coverage, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers purpose, date semantics, league scope, and cost without needing to explain return-value structure.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the date semantics and league scope but does not add team-filter semantics or other meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 resource, the injury report, and enumerates its core contents: player status (out, day-to-day), injury, and expected return. It also scopes the tool to NBA and WNBA and clarifies the as-of-date behavior, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose immediately.

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 explicitly says 'Use for the injury report,' giving clear context for selection. It also explains the date fallback behavior, though it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, which is less critical here because no sibling tool covers injuries.

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