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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: a 10-credit cost and the 3,000-shot cap on include_shots. It does not say what scope results from calling with no arguments (all params optional), which would have made it a 5.

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 sentences, no padding. The output content and zone list come first, the conditional parameter second, the cost last. Every clause conveys something an agent needs.

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 shape needn't be spelled out, yet the description usefully names the metrics and the costly optional flag. With 8 optional parameters and zero required, the one real gap is that it never says whether an empty call is valid or what it defaults to.

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 63%, and the schema already documents team, league, season, opponent and include_shots. The description restates zone grouping and the include_shots effect but adds no syntax guidance for game_id, player_id or season_type, the undocumented portion. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific resource and output shape: per-zone attempts, makes, percentage, points per shot and expected points per shot, enumerated zones, and four scoping modes (player, team, team's opponents, one game). An agent knows exactly what it will get back. It never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from e.g. get_team_stats, which is the only missing element.

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 a shot profile' is an explicit use cue, and the description enumerates the valid scoping combinations (player / team / opponent / game). It also tells when to flip include_shots (only when you need shot locations for a chart). No when-not-to-use or explicit alternative tool is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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