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-data traits are covered. The description adds only the shape of the return (one row per team, overall and from three), which is largely restated by the output schema. No notes on rate limits, season defaults, or coverage caveats beyond the schema.

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 single sentence is duplicated verbatim, so half the text is pure waste. It also opens with the awkward fragment 'Get Returns' rather than front-loading the resource cleanly.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully documented, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so little else is strictly required. However, in a large catalog of near-identically named shooting tools, the absence of any disambiguation or usage context leaves a real gap.

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%: season, per_mode, league_id, and season_type all carry their own descriptions including defaults and valid values. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline applies — the schema does the work and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 and scope: 'the league's opponent shooting table: one row per team with the shooting it allows, split overall and from three.' That verb+resource phrasing plus 'one row per team' implicitly separates it from player-level siblings. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as team or player shooting tools, and no exclusions. An agent must guess whether this is the right table for a defensive shooting question versus nba_team_pt_shot or nba_pt_defend.

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