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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context the annotations cannot convey: the credit cost ('Costs 1 credit') and the default season behavior (latest), both of which affect invocation decisions.

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 with zero filler. The purpose and the default are front-loaded, and the prerequisite note follows as supporting rationale in sequence an agent reads.

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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, output schema present, rich annotations), and the description covers the three things structured fields don't: why to call it, its role as a prerequisite for siblings, and its credit cost. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 parameters (league enum, season) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the season default ('default: the latest'), which duplicates the schema and adds no meaning about the league parameter or accepted season formats.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('find team ids and abbreviations') scoped to a season, and immediately distinguishes this tool from all 19 siblings by noting 'Every other tool takes a team as an id or abbreviation.' An agent can identify this as the team-id lookup without inspecting schemas.

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?

It makes the usage context explicit: call this first to obtain team ids/abbreviations that the other tools require. It doesn't name a specific alternative or an exclusion case, but the prerequisite framing is enough to route the agent correctly in nearly all cases.

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