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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the default behaviors for season and per_mode, both of which the schema already documents, so its incremental behavioral value is modest. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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 duplicated verbatim, doubling the length with zero new information. The underlying single sentence is reasonably front-loaded, but the repetition is a clear structural defect that wastes the agent's context.

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 and all four parameters are documented, so the description needn't explain return values. It supplies purpose, sibling relationship, and aggregation semantics, leaving nothing an agent needs in order 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 description coverage is 100% with four fully documented optional parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates the season default and that per_mode changes the aggregation but adds no examples, allowed values, or edge cases beyond 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?

The description names a specific resource ('the league's team hustle table') and enumerates its contents (contested shots, deflections, charges drawn, screen assists and points, loose balls, box-outs), which lets an agent separate it from the per-player sibling. The awkward 'Get Returns' opening and the fact that team-level scope is only implied (versus explicitly contrasted with nba_hustle_player) keep it short of a 5.

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 gives concrete usage context: use it when comparing team-level hustle, 'before or alongside' nba-hustle-stats (one game) and nba-team-stats, which tells the agent how these tools compose. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to avoid it in favor of the player variant), so not a 5.

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