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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive semantics, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations don't carry: a 5-credit cost. It stops short of noting caching/freshness of the weekly lines, but against rich annotations the incremental context is solid.

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?

Two short elements: a content-scope sentence front-loaded with 'Use for', then a separate cost clause. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical stat-family list is dense and slightly listy.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey scope and any operational constraint; it does both, including cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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 coverage is 100% with team code examples, season defaulting, and a season_type enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces the single-team single-season scope and adds no format or default detail beyond that.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns for a single team-season (totals by unit, EPA per play, efficiency rates, standings row, weekly lines), which distinguishes it in practice from aggregate siblings like get_standings or get_player_stats. It lacks an explicit verb and never names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 one team's season' is an implied usage cue, but there is no guidance on when to prefer get_standings, get_advanced_stats, or get_player_stats instead, nor any exclusion. An agent must reason from the content list to pick this tool.

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