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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the 5-credit cost and clarifying that regular-season and postseason splits are returned separately; it does not cover error behavior or response shape, but those are less critical given the output 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?

The description is two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The main capability is front-loaded, followed immediately by the sibling-tool routing and cost.

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 annotations cover safety and idempotency, the output schema covers return values, and the input schema documents both parameters, the description supplies exactly the missing context: what data are included, how postseason splits are handled, when to use an alternative, and the credit cost.

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 player_id and league are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format detail about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (player) and the exact data returned: profile, per-season averages, shooting splits separated by regular season/postseason, and last 10 games. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_player_games for game-level data, so an agent can select it without opening sibling schemas.

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 gives clear usage guidance with 'Use for...' and explicitly routes game-by-game requests to get_player_games. The condition for the alternative is stated directly, leaving little ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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