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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses pagination behavior (pages are chronological, follow next_offset, a season exceeds one page) and a concrete cost of 10 credits. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before calling a large paginated endpoint.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose+contrast, return fields, filtering modes, then pagination and cost. Front-loaded with the selection cue, no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape — yet it still summarizes the key fields, and it covers pagination and cost, the two things an agent could otherwise get wrong on a season-length query. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds that game_id is an alternative to the season+team/player combination, which conveys the mutual-exclusivity and pairing rules an agent would otherwise have to infer. It doesn't document limit/offset/strength syntax beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource (shot attempts with rink coordinates) and explicitly contrasts it with the alternative output shape ('rather than a list of events'), which cleanly separates it from get_plays and get_game_detail. The enumerated return fields (shot type, strength, shooter, goalie) further pin down what 'shot map' means.

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 when you want shot locations rather than a list of events' gives a clear selection condition, and 'Filter by game, or by season plus a team or player' shows the two valid calling modes. It stops short of naming a specific sibling tool as the fallback, so the routing is implied rather than fully explicit.

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