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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: league must be nfl, team must come from fanduel_sportsbook_teams, and other leagues trigger an error listing their pages.

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 the core action and immediately followed by usage and prerequisites. No filler or repetition beyond useful reinforcement.

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?

The tool is read-only, has two fully documented parameters, and includes an output schema. The description covers purpose, constraints, and error behavior, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces that this specific tool needs league nfl and a team slug from fanduel_sportsbook_teams, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: get an NFL team's depth chart and statistical leaders. It distinguishes the resource from related pages by naming depth-chart fields and explaining that it shows who starts at each position.

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?

It clearly says to use this tool to see who starts at each position and specifies the required league and team slug. It also states that other leagues return an error, but it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools such as team_roster or team_stats.

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