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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the return artifact (the slug) and the league coverage, but says nothing about ambiguous names, multiple matches, or empty results — behavior an agent needs to interpret the response. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.

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 purpose and usage trigger are front-loaded in two tight sentences. The final "Sports: NFL (NFL), CFB (College football)..." sentence is mostly redundant with the enum, though the CFB gloss and the placement at the end are the only real weak points.

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 two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what it returns (a slug). What's missing is how to handle ambiguous or zero-match queries, which is a meaningful gap for a search tool but not a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100%, with both query (with examples and length bounds) and sport (enum) fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no matching semantics beyond the schema — it doesn't say whether query is fuzzy, partial, or requires exact names. The trailing league list only partly adds value by glossing CFB as College football.

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?

"Find an athlete DARIMARKET tracks and get the slug the stats tools need" states a specific verb (find), a specific resource (player), and the output artifact (slug) that connects it to downstream tools. An agent can tell this apart from get_player_hit_rates or todays_most_consistent_players 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?

"Use when the user names an NFL, college football, NBA, WNBA, MLB or NHL player and you need their recent stats, team or next game" gives an explicit trigger condition and the intent behind it. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (e.g. get_player_hit_rates) or stating when not to use it, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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