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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context ('Public API: GET /programs', 'full details'), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a page_size parameter, nor about return shape or defaults beyond 'vendor default'.

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, front-loaded sentences that identify the resource and the key filter immediately. The endpoint reference is minor overhead but does not undermine the tight structure.

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 simple, fully-annotated read tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers resource scope and the primary filter. The only real gap is disambiguation from list_current_programs.

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 the schema already documents both parameters and the four state enum values. The description's restatement of the state values adds little beyond the schema and does not explain the default or pagination semantics of 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (programs), and clarifies the resource by enumerating what counts as a program (leagues, clubs, camps, tournaments, classes). It is clearly distinct from the single-item leagueapps_get_program, but it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling leagueapps_list_current_programs, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Provides usage guidance for one parameter ('Choose states with include_states'), which implies filtering usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the very similar leagueapps_list_current_programs sibling, leaving the main selection decision to inference.

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