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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 5-credit cost and a cheaper rival path, plus the shape of the payload. It stops short of noting pagination or result ordering, which keeps it at 4.

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, zero filler, and the ordering is correct: what it does, what it returns, then the cheaper alternative and cost. Nothing could be cut without losing routing or pricing 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?

For an 8-parameter, optional-arg, multi-league list tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, routing and cost adequately. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and whether season is required for sensible queries, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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 every parameter — including the enum meanings for game_state and the season/date formats — is documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (querying games) plus scope (past or future, with filters) and even previews the returned fields (scores, teams, venue, metadata). It explicitly separates itself from the nearest sibling, get_schedule, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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 use case, names the alternative (get_schedule) and the condition that selects it (upcoming-only games), and prices both options (2 vs 5 credits). That is a full when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else rule.

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