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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description goes well beyond them: a 10-credit cost, historical coverage bounds (odds from 2019-20 on, part of the 2019 playoffs), and the derivation limit on goalie starts. The betting-policy sentence discloses a use restriction the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 use condition is front-loaded, followed by prerequisite, coverage caveats, cost, and policy in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent would otherwise lack; nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the description covers the remaining burden: what's included, how to get the game ID, data availability limits by date and game state, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description still adds value by explaining where game_id comes from and implying the ID format ties to a specific game. It says nothing about the league parameter, but the schema's enum and default fully cover that.

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 and enumerates the payload: both teams' full info, all betting odds, and goalies with time on ice. That enumeration implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like get_odds or get_shifts, though no sibling is named 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 trigger ('Use when you need everything about one game'), a prerequisite with its source ('Requires a game ID (get one from get_games or get_schedule)'), and a when-not ('goalie starts ... available for played games, not upcoming ones'). The agent knows both when to call it and how to obtain the required input.

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