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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the tool costs 2 credits and defaults to the latest reported week of the current season. This gives agents important context for invocation, though it doesn't describe error handling or edge cases.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and packs in the key details (statuses, participation, grouping, defaults, cost) efficiently.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. For a 4-parameter optional tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, defaults, and cost, providing all necessary context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already describes each parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds semantics by clarifying that the report is organized by team and week, and by reinforcing the meaning of the status filter (Out, Doubtful, Questionable). It also mentions default behavior for week and season, which goes beyond the schema's generic defaults.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'official injury report' with specific fields (game status, practice participation) and by team and week. It distinguishes from siblings since it's the only injury-related tool among the list.

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?

It opens with 'Use for the official injury report', giving a clear when-to-use directive. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list makes it the obvious choice for injury data, so the guidance is adequate.

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