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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/liveness profile is covered. The description describes the returned content, but an output schema exists, so return values are largely redundant. It adds the league whitelist constraint, which is modest additional context.

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 operation and return contents, followed by one dense prerequisite/chaining sentence. Slightly long but every clause carries information; 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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies the missing chain context (where the season id comes from, what to do next). Complete enough to call correctly, though it could note the upcoming-vs-previous selection behavior.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the nba/nfl restriction and the origin of the season id, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('the draft attached to a SofaScore league season'), scopes it to nba/nfl, and enumerates the payload (upcoming/previous draft, year, dates, status, rounds, lottery state). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling sofascore_draft_picks, which it references as a downstream step.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite tool ('Requires a season id from sofascore_tournament_seasons') with the exact competition ids (NBA 132, NFL 9464), and names the follow-up tool ('use its years and rounds with sofascore_draft_picks'). The when-to-use and the chaining context are both given.

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