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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds endpoint behavior: a request missing MeasureType returns HTTP 400 naming that parameter, and distance_range is pinned to the single verified value 'By Zone'. This tells the agent about failure modes and a hard constraint it would otherwise discover only by trial. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, keeping it below 5.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by output shape and then constraints. The first two sentences partially restate each other ('Get NBA team shot-location dashboard' / 'Returns the team shot-location dashboard'), which is the only wasted wording. Everything else earns its place.

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?

Six optional parameters with full schema coverage, an output schema that documents return values, and annotations covering safety. Against that, the description supplies the missing pieces: required-by-endpoint behavior, the pinned distance_range value, and the error condition. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that measure_type is effectively required by the endpoint despite being optional in the schema, and that distance_range only accepts 'By Zone'. There is mild tension between 'requires MeasureType' and the schema's 'Optional; defaults to Base,' though the description's framing resolves it as the wrapper always supplying the value.

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 verb and resource ('Get NBA team shot-location dashboard') and specifies the output grain: 'one row per team with the shooting columns for each distance zone.' That grain detail helps separate it from player- or lineup-level shot siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is implied through the team-level, distance-zone framing rather than stated: there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use nba_shot_chart instead when...' routing. The stated prerequisite about MeasureType/DistanceRange is a call constraint, not guidance on choosing between sibling shot tools. An agent can infer the niche but must do the work itself.

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