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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, so the description's main contribution is the 'Costs 2 credits' disclosure, which is real behavioral information an agent cannot get from structured fields. It omits any note on response shape, but the output schema covers that.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the purpose, then the field list, then the default, then the cost. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, defaults, and credit cost. The only gap is a lack of guidance on when to prefer this over adjacent tools like get_snap_counts or get_player_stats, which is minor for a low-complexity read tool.

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 four parameters (team, week, season, formation) are already documented in the schema, including the week default. The description restates the week default and 'by week' scope but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('get/use for') and resource ('a team's depth chart by week') and enumerates the returned fields (formation, position, depth rank, player), which is unusually concrete. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource is distinctive enough within the sports-stats family that disambiguation is not needed.

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 team's depth chart by week' plus 'Defaults to the latest week available' gives an implied usage context and default behavior, but names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. versus get_snap_counts or get_team_stats).

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