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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: tiebreak ranks follow the real NFL procedure and report the deciding step, data is computed from final scores, and the call costs 2 credits. It does not cover error or empty-result behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose leads, followed by output fields, then behavioral notes (tiebreaking, provenance, default, cost) in short declarative sentences. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers scope, all three filter defaults, the tiebreak methodology, data provenance, and cost — everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly.

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 season, division, and conference including the current-season default. The description's restatement of the default adds no syntax or format detail beyond it; 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 with enumerated outputs: record, win%, points for/against, home/away/division/conference records, streak, division rank, conference seed. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_team_stats or get_advanced_stats, which cover different stat families.

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 regular-season standings and playoff seeding" gives clear conditions for selection, and "Defaults to the current season" sets the default scope. However, it names no alternative (e.g. use get_team_stats for per-team aggregate stats) and states no exclusions, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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