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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it states the cost (5 credits) and defines qualification thresholds for batting and pitching stats, which affect which players appear.

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?

The description is front-loaded with "Use for" and packs the stat list, qualification thresholds, and credit cost into one dense but efficient sentence. Every clause carries operational 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, stat categories, qualification defaults, and cost; the only notable gap is that it does not explain the limit parameter or how results are ranked/limited.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by grouping stats into batting and pitching and specifying the default qualification thresholds for each. It also clarifies what min_pa and min_ip are overriding, though it does not explain the limit parameter.

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 clearly states a specific verb/resource: a season's leaders among qualified players. It enumerates the exact batting and pitching stats supported, making the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a season's leaders..." gives a clear usage context and maps stat choices to batting or pitching categories. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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