mfl_injuries

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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavior context: it works without an API key, the MFL_COOKIE unlocks more, and data is updated daily in season. It also reveals that the response is verified live as of 2026. These details go beyond the annotations, though it could explain what 'unlocks more' entails.

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 relatively tight: a one-line purpose, a return shape, an example, and an auth note. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, the phrase 'by player id' is unnecessary and could be removed or clarified, and the ellipsis in the status list adds minor ambiguity, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description provides the return shape and an example, which is helpful. It does not explain all possible statuses (only lists some) or the meaning of 'exp_return', nor does it mention that 'W' defaults to the most recent week (though the schema covers that). The description is adequate but leaves a few minor gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it provides an example with 'year' and repeats the note about JSON and TYPE being left as-is, which is already in the schema. The ambiguous 'by player id' could mislead about whether a player ID is needed, but that affects purpose more than parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the resource (NFL injury report) and the kind of data (status, body part). However, the phrase 'by player id' is ambiguous — it might imply filtering per player, but the required parameter is only 'year', not a player id. This could confuse an agent about the tool's scope, but the overall purpose is still fairly clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other injury-related tools like mysportsfeeds_injuries or sportsdataio_nfl_injuries. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where this tool is preferred. The description only gives an example and notes auth, but no when-to-use guidance.

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