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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information annotations cannot convey: default sort order ('newest first'), that scores are included, and the cost ('Costs 2 credits'), which matters for a metered API. It stops short of describing pagination behavior beyond what the schema's 'use next_offset' note implies.

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 tight sentences with the primary routing information front-loaded and the exclusion rules second. Minor economy: 'Use to list' is slightly padded versus a direct declarative, but nothing is wasted.

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 need not be explained, and the description still flags ordering and credit cost. For a 10-parameter, all-optional filter tool the guidance is sufficient to call it correctly, though pagination behavior and the effect of combining date with from/to are left to the schema.

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 90% and the schema documents date formats, enums, default limit and the season-year convention, so the schema carries the burden. The description names the principal filter dimensions but adds no format or interaction detail (e.g. how date/from/to combine when passed together) beyond what is already structured.

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 concrete verb+resource ('list games with scores') plus the filter axes (season, date, date range, team) and the ordering ('newest first'). It also names the two siblings it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get_schedule and get_game without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use-alternative routing: 'For upcoming games with lines use get_schedule; for one game's box score use get_game.' This maps each competing need to the correct tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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