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

readOnlyHint already declares the safe-read profile, so the description's main addition is "Public API: GET /programs/current," which hints at public data access, plus the current/upcoming filter semantics. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what a program object contains.

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, scope stated first, orientation hint second, endpoint last. Nothing redundant and 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?

For a no-required-param, read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers what an agent needs to decide and call. Only a brief note on output shape/ordering (since no output schema exists) would round it out.

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 both booleans (include_deleted, include_private) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about these flags or their interaction with the current/upcoming filter, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Specific verb+resource with a clear scope qualifier ("open now or upcoming"), which implicitly separates it from the broader leagueapps_list_programs sibling. It never names that sibling outright, so the distinction is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

"Good first call to see what the organization runs" gives explicit entry-point guidance, which is genuinely useful for orienting an agent. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer list_programs or get_program).

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