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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds cursor-based pagination semantics (filter by sport and page with cursor), which is a real behavioral detail. It doesn't mention rate limits or result ordering, so not a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and followed by the intended use. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, chaining, and pagination — everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying parameters to their purpose: sport filter and cursor paging, plus pointing at fanduel_research_sports as the source of sport slugs. Modest but genuine added value over 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 (List) and resource (FanDuel Research authors) and enumerates returned fields (id, slug, bio, social accounts, sports covered). Distinguishes it from sibling author tools like fanduel_research_author by noting it's a listing.

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 two downstream uses (finding an author id for fanduel_research_articles, a slug for fanduel_research_author) and states the available filters (sport, cursor paging). This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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