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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context — "Costs 5 credits" — which an agent cannot get from the structured fields. It does not, however, note rate limits or output characteristics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opening with "Use for" and a compact enumeration of the payload. Every clause contributes; the credit cost is tucked at the end where it is easy to scan.

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 not needed, and the description still summarizes payload breadth plus the credit cost. Required vs optional parameters are handled by the schema. Minor gap: no note on default season behavior in prose, though the schema covers it.

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%, and the schema documents team code format, season default, and the REG/POST enum, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely gestures at season scope ("season", "weekly stat line") and adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 (one team's season stats) and enumerates exactly what is returned — totals, EPA per play, yards per attempt/carry, standings row, weekly stat lines. This implicitly separates it from get_player_stats and get_standings, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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" gives an implied scope, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_advanced_stats or get_standings, which overlap in content. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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