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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-API nature are covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral facts — the season defaults to the current one and per_mode controls the aggregation — but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or pagination behavior for an open-world remote call, and the content is duplicated verbatim rather than expanded.

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?

The entire description is repeated twice word-for-word, roughly doubling length with zero added information. It also opens awkwardly with 'Get Returns' and buries the sibling routing mid-paragraph, so structure and economy are both weak.

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, return values need not be described, and 100% schema coverage plus readOnly/openWorld annotations carry the rest of the burden. The description covers purpose, row grain, defaults, and sibling routing, leaving only minor gaps around external-call 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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description restates only the season default and that per_mode changes aggregation, which largely duplicates the schema defaults and says nothing about league_id or season_type beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... the league's player hustle table'), enumerates the metrics returned (contested shots, deflections, charges drawn, screen assists, loose balls, box-outs) and the row grain ('one row per player'). It also distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by naming them and their scope (nba-hustle-stats one game, nba-hustle-team team level).

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 says to use it 'when comparing player-level hustle' and routes the agent to the game-level and team-level alternatives. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. single-game or team-aggregate needs are implied rather than stated as exclusions), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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