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

Annotations only indicate readOnly and non-destructive hints. The description goes far beyond by defining the five states (live, lapsed, stale, asleep, retired) and their implications, including cautions about lapsed facts ('ask before taking the freed space') and the status of stale facts. This is rich behavioral context not visible in schema or annotations.

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 description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and when-to-use guidance in the first two sentences. The state breakdown follows logically and every clause adds value—no filler. Despite length, it earns its space by clarifying a complex state model.

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?

Covers usage, state semantics, and differentiation from the snapshot. It does not explicitly describe the response format (e.g., array of fact objects), but given that the tool is a listing endpoint and the description references facts carrying a 'state', it is reasonably complete for a read-only operation. A minor gap is the absence of explicit return shape, but not critical.

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%, giving baseline 3. However, the description adds nuanced meaning to the 'state' parameter by explaining each state's semantics and the default behavior (everything except retired). It does not add extra meaning for 'tag' or 'area' beyond schema descriptions, but the state definitions are a meaningful augmentation.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists all facts about the athlete, specifically distinguishing active facts (already in snapshots) from inactive ones (lapsed, asleep, retired). This differentiates it from any sibling that returns the current snapshot, and the verb 'call this' implies a listing action.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use: 'call this when you need the rest' and enumerates the specific cases (lapsed, asleep out of season, retired history, or a specific area in full). Also implicitly says not to use it for active facts since they are already in the snapshot, providing clear contextual guidance.

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