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 bar is lower. The description adds two genuinely useful facts not in structured fields: the credit cost (2 credits) and the defaulting behavior to the latest reported week of the current season. It stops short of describing pagination or result size, but an output schema exists to carry return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the defaulting rule, then the cost. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information.

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?

For a four-parameter, all-optional read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything still missing: what the report contains, the default week/season behavior, and the credit cost. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 all four parameters including their defaults. The description only restates the team/week dimensions and the week default, adding no format or syntax detail (e.g. valid team code forms) beyond the schema. 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?

The description names the specific resource (the official injury report) and enumerates its contents: game status values (Out, Doubtful, Questionable) and practice participation with the injury named. It also states the query dimensions (team and week), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. No sibling tool covers injuries, so no disambiguation is 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 the official injury report" plus the stated default (latest reported week of the current season) gives clear context on when this tool applies. It does not state exclusions or point to an alternative, but none of the siblings (get_player_stats, get_depth_chart, get_odds) overlaps in scope.

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