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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's main added value is the 'Costs 2 credits' disclosure and the default-week behavior — both genuinely useful beyond structured fields. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering, but the output schema carries 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 front-loaded sentence that states purpose, return fields, default behavior, and cost with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 four fully described params, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is still needed: cost and the week default. A brief note on how formation filtering interacts with depth rank would make it fully complete, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already documents team, week, season, and formation. The description reinforces the week default but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (a team's depth chart by week) and enumerates what it returns: formation, position, depth rank, player. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings like get_snap_counts or get_injuries.

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' gives a clear context for invocation, and the default-to-latest-week note tells the agent it can omit the week. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among siblings, so it falls 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.