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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not explain mutation risk. It adds useful behavioral scope by stating the NFL/NBA-only coverage, season-block framing, and that results include previous and next games.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and then layers in returned fields and league constraints. There is no wasted text.

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 an output schema present and both annotations supplied, the description does enough: it identifies the tool's scope, returned information, and league limitation. No material calling information 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains team slugs and league values in detail. The description reinforces the NFL/NBA restriction but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it gets a FanDuel Sportsbook team's schedule and results. It names the scope (season block), the returned fields, the previous/next game, and the supported leagues, which clearly distinguishes it from league-wide or team-stats siblings.

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 explicitly limits applicability to NFL and NBA, which is the key when-to-use constraint. It does not name an alternative sibling such as fanduel_sportsbook_schedule, but the team-focused scope makes the intended usage clear.

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