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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely extra context: a 5-credit cost, the games-played filter behavior, and a caveat that goalie expected goals cover all strengths whereas team possession columns are 5v5-only. That strength-coverage caveat and the cost disclosure are exactly the beyond-schema traits that prevent misuse.

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?

Four dense sentences that lead with the trigger and the sort/metric surface before the caveat and cost. Every sentence carries information, though the return-field enumeration is slightly list-heavy for a tool with an output schema.

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 needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the key metrics and flags the strength-coverage limitation. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 all six parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description alludes to the games-played filter and the sort metrics, but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the enum and property descriptions already say. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 concrete verb and resource ('returns a leaderboard' of goalie stats) and enumerates the sort dimensions, which clearly separates it from get_player_stats and get_skater_season_stats. An agent can tell this is the goalie-ranking endpoint without opening the 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when ranking goalies or comparing goalie performance'), giving clear selection context against the sibling stat tools. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it, so it isn't a 5.

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