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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement and a hint at the return payload, but both are already stated in the schema (_apiKey description includes the signup URL), so the net new behavioral context is thin.

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, front-loaded with purpose and scope, with no filler. The return-field sentence is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it below a 5.

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 a full-coverage schema, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to state what the tool fetches and its prerequisite — both are present. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all three parameters (season, limit, _apiKey) are documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's season examples duplicate the schema's "Season start year (e.g., 2024 for the 2024-25 season)" without adding meaning, and it says nothing about limit or default page size.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get NBA games") plus scope ("for a season"), and names the identifying field (season). It is clearly distinct from sibling resources like nba_get_player or nba_get_teams, though it never explicitly states that distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you want games for a season, and the API-key prerequisite is stated. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no note on whether to filter by team/date, and no exclusions.

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