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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's added value is the credit cost (10) and the historical coverage floor (2010-11 on) — both operationally useful facts absent from the structured fields. It doesn't address result size or pagination, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case, then scope, then filters, then constraints and cost — no filler. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only wasted space.

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 a three-parameter filtered read with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly: what it returns, what can be filtered, the historical boundary, and the cost.

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 three parameters (game_id, team, player_id) are already documented with formats and examples. The description only restates that filtering by one team or player is possible, adding no syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the schema; 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?

Names a specific verb and resource — every player's shifts in one NHL game — and enumerates the returned fields (period, start/end, duration, boxscore TOI, plus/minus). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_plays, get_situation_time, and get_player_game_log.

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 who was on the ice and when" frames the selection context, and the description states narrowing options (team or player) plus a data-coverage limit (2010-11 on). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition.

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