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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/false. The description adds value by listing the returned stats (PTS, REB, AST, etc.) and filter options, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior (cursor parameter), error scenarios, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return data, with no filler or redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

Despite low schema coverage (0%), the description does not fully explain all parameters (e.g., cursor, per_page, postseason) or pagination. While output schema exists, the description should compensate for missing parameter documentation to ensure the agent can invoke the tool correctly. Current depth is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'player, team, game, or season', but the schema includes 'team' only implicitly (no parameter named 'team'), and lacks explanation for 'cursor', 'per_page', and 'postseason'. Only 3 of 6 parameters are partially described, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing per-game NBA player box-score stats with specific metrics (PTS, REB, AST, etc.) and filtering dimensions (player, team, game, season). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'player' or 'season_averages' by focusing on individual game performance.

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?

The description states explicit use cases ('individual game performance lookup, box-score analysis, fantasy stats'), providing clear context. However, it does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives like 'player' (for player info) or 'season_averages' (for season-level data), which would strengthen guidance.

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