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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only 'a page at a time,' which signals pagination but does not explain page size, how to advance, or when results end. No auth or rate-limit context is given.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the scope and pagination model front-loaded and the alternative trailing. Every clause 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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool the routing information is adequate, and annotations cover safety. But with no output schema, the return shape is undocumented beyond the cursor's implied page.next reference — an agent cannot tell what a 'player profile' contains or how large a page is.

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 50%: 'cursor' is documented in the schema as 'page.next from the previous call,' while 'sport' carries only a self-explanatory enum. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the schema does the work. Baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level.

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 the resource ('player profiles'), the scope ('a whole sport'), and the delivery model ('a page at a time') in one line, then explicitly names the sibling it is not (aura_get_team_roster). An agent can distinguish this from aura_list_teams, aura_get_player, and aura_get_team_roster without opening any schema.

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 alternative with its selecting condition: 'For one team use aura_get_team_roster.' That routes the team-scoped case cleanly. It does not address the single-player case (aura_get_player) or say when to avoid listing an entire sport, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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