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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningfully beyond them: the call is anonymous (no auth), parameterless, and a single JSON read, which sets expectations about cost and shape.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The routing sentence is dense but earns its place; slight readability cost from cramming slug format and sibling contrast into one sentence.

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?

For a zero-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, what the slug is used for, which sibling consumes the alternative identifier, and that the read is anonymous. No substantive gap remains.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly confirms it takes no parameters, matching the empty schema with additionalProperties=false. Nothing further is needed on the parameter side.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('List the NFHS Network sport-slug map') and states exactly what each entry contains ('each sport slug with its two-team flag'). It also contrasts itself with siblings by noting the sibling tools consume display names while this one yields URL slugs.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when you need the URL slug a sport uses in the site's own /sports/{sport}/... routes') and an explicit alternative context ('the nfhs_events activity filter instead takes the display names returned by nfhs_activities'). The agent can route between this, nfhs_activities, and nfhs_events without inference.

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