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

Annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds two things they cannot: the 'newest first' ordering and the 'Costs 2 credits' cost signal. It does not discuss pagination behavior despite offset/limit params, which keeps it from 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?

Two routing sentences plus a trailing cost note, with the primary purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries either scope, routing, or cost information.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, ordering, sibling routing and cost for a 10-param tool. The only gap is that pagination semantics for offset/limit are left entirely to the schema.

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 80%, so the schema already documents date, range, team, season, status, league and limits. The description's 'by season, date, date range or team' phrase confirms which axes are combinable but adds no format or default detail (e.g. limit 50, league default mlb) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3.

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 verb and resource ('list games') plus the returned content ('runs, hits and errors') and the filter axes ('by season, date, date range or team'). It is immediately distinguishable from get_schedule and get_game, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use get_schedule for upcoming games with lines, use get_game for a single box score. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both spelled out with the condition that selects each alternative.

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