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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-annotation value: the credit cost (1 credit, cheapest) and the scope of the dataset (32 current teams, i.e. no historical franchises).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then output detail, then cost. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 covers scope, spelling conventions and cost. It leaves minor gaps such as whether results are paginated or how current the roster data is, but nothing an agent needs to call it 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% and both filters (division, conference) are already documented with examples and an enum in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's nflverse spelling note clarifies output values rather than the parameters themselves.

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?

Names the resource (teams) and precisely enumerates what is returned: team codes plus all 32 current teams with conference, division, colours and logo URLs. The nflverse spelling note (LA, WAS) further pins down the exact output, making it unmistakable against siblings like get_standings or get_team_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 when you need team codes" gives a clear triggering condition, and the 1-credit cost note helps an agent pick this over costlier siblings. However, it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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