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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what annotations cannot: a concrete cost of 5 credits and the fact that results are aggregated from every box score, which matters for budgeting and for understanding scope. It does not discuss the volume-floor mechanics that would change results.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The usage cue and aggregation modes come first, and the cost constraint is placed last where it reads as a caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the schema covers defaults for league, season, min_games and season_type. What is missing for a 6-parameter ranking tool is routing against neighbors like get_team_stats and get_player_games, plus any note on whether limit truncates or errors.

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 83% and the schema already documents season, league, min_games default and season_type. The description's mention of 'shooting percentages with a volume floor' hints at how the pct stats are constrained and at what min_games governs, but it maps nothing to actual parameter names, so it stays at the baseline.

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: season statistical leaders computed from every box score, and names the three aggregation modes (per game, shooting percentages with a volume floor, totals). It is clearly distinct from get_team_stats or get_standings by implication, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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...' gives an implied usage condition, which is better than nothing. But there is no when-not guidance (e.g., use get_player_games for a single player's logs, get_standings for team records) and no alternative is named despite many adjacent siblings in the catalog.

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