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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds shape information the annotations cannot: that each returned record includes projection type, position tabs, and whether the table takes a scope, slate, or golf event — which is exactly what an agent needs before calling the sibling. It stops short of noting that the catalog is fixed/cached, but that is a minor gap.

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, no waste. The catalog content is front-loaded and the 'use it first' directive follows immediately, so the agent hits the operative instruction before the description ends.

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-format details are unnecessary here, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies the one thing neither structured field provides: this is a discovery/prerequisite step before fanduel_research_projections. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single optional sport parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly further by enumerating the five supported sports in prose and tying the parameter to a downstream purpose, confirming the filter operates per-sport rather than merely restricting rows.

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 ('List') plus a precise resource ('the 17 FanDuel Research fantasy projection tables') scoped to five named sports, and it states exactly what each table entry carries (projection type, position tabs, scope/slate/golf event). It also names the sibling it feeds, fanduel_research_projections, so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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?

Explicit sequencing instruction: 'Use it first to learn which type, position and scope values fanduel_research_projections accepts for a sport.' This both names the alternative and states the condition (unknown enum values for a sport) that selects this tool over it.

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