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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the 2-credit cost and the default-resolution behavior for week/season, which matters for an agent budgeting calls.

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 tight sentences with the payload description front-loaded, then defaults, then cost. No filler or tautology. Slightly dense in enumerating return fields, but 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the domain scope, defaults, and credit cost. The only omission is guidance on when the default week may be empty or how filtering interacts with team, which is minor for a zero-required-parameter read.

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, status) are already documented in the schema, including the week default and the Out/Doubtful/Questionable values. The description repeats the status vocabulary and defaults without adding syntax or format detail, 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 resource (official injury report), the exact payload (game status values plus practice participation with the injury named), and the grouping dimensions (by team and week). No sibling tool covers injuries, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from get_depth_chart or get_player_stats.

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" sets a clear condition and the default (latest reported week of the current season) tells the agent it can call with no arguments. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, but no sibling overlaps this domain.

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