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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, open-world read, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds that results span past and future games and lists the fields returned, but that overlaps with the output schema and omits useful behavior such as which week is selected, timezone handling, or result limits.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the return contents summarized second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, almost nothing needs to be in prose. The remaining ambiguity about which week is returned is minor and likely resolved by the output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no argument semantics to explain. The description correctly does not invent parameters, and the empty schema is consistent with a no-argument convenience fetch.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the current NHL weekly schedule') and clarifies the scope with 'upcoming and recent games,' so the agent can distinguish it from a scores or standings tool. It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implied by the word 'weekly' and the 'upcoming and recent' framing, which tells the agent this is the fixture/listing endpoint rather than a results endpoint. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, and no mention of how it relates to nhl_get_scores or nhl_get_standings.

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