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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-destruction, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the credit cost (5 credits) and the data provenance ('from every plate appearance'), which explains why rates are computed from raw events. It omits any note on latency or caching, which is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, purpose front-loaded and cost disclosed at the tail where it belongs. The parenthetical metric list is dense but scannable.

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-shape explanation isn't needed, and the annotations cover semantics. The remaining hole is the undocumented required-ish 'team' input and the absence of any routing to list_teams or get_standings, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling.

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 67%; league and season are documented in the schema, but the bare 'team' string has no description and the description doesn't clarify whether it expects a name, abbreviation, or ID, nor point to list_teams for resolution. With no compensating detail in the description, this sits at the baseline rather than above it.

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+resource (team stats for a season) and enumerates the exact metrics returned — runs per game for/against, differential, AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS, K%, BB%, HR. It never names the adjacent siblings (get_standings, get_ratings) so an agent must infer the boundary, but the metric inventory is distinctive enough to be actionable.

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 team offence and run prevention for a season' implies the use case but gives no when-not guidance and no alternative tools. An agent choosing between this, get_standings, and get_ratings gets no disambiguation from the description alone.

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