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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: it is a free-tier endpoint, sourced from ESPN, and refreshed every 10 minutes. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, keeping it short of 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 endpoint tier and resource, then coverage, then a compact field list, then usage examples. Every sentence carries information (tier, source, refresh cadence, fields, use cases) with 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (status, status_code, injury, expected return, status_since) and their meaning. Combined with tier, source, freshness, and supported sports, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 (team, status, sport_key) are already documented, including allowed status codes and sport keys. The description repeats status-value examples but adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('current injury report') and enumerates the supported sports (NFL, NCAAF, NBA, WNBA, NHL, MLB). The word 'current' cleanly separates it from the sibling propline_get_injury_history, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete use-case phrasing ('who is out for the Chiefs', 'which NBA players are questionable tonight') and a clear moment to call it: 'check it before trusting a player prop'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use note or a direct pointer to the injury_history sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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