mysportsfeeds_injuries

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds transparency about the unverified response shape, explicitly warning it's from vendor docs and not confirmed via live response, advising to inspect the actual payload. This goes beyond the annotations to disclose reliability and the 'always now' behavior. No contradiction with 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return shape, caveats, example, and auth. It is somewhat long due to the reliability warning, but every sentence earns its place given the unverified nature of the API. No wasteful repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides an approximate return shape, notes the absence of a season segment, gives an example call, and states auth requirements. It covers the essential operational details an agent needs, though it doesn't clarify behavior when optional team/player parameters are used, which is a minor gap.

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?

Input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (league enum, team abbreviations, player ids/slugs) at 100% coverage. The description adds only a minor example and notes league is required and part of the URL path, which is not essential. It does not compensate significantly beyond the schema.

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 tool provides a current injury list for a league, with a specific resource and scope. It adds the nuance that injuries are always 'now' with no season segment, which helps distinguish from historical endpoints, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

The description gives a concrete example and notes the auth requirement (own key in MYSPORTSFEEDS_API_KEY), plus clarifies the 'always now' context. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over other injury tools (e.g., sportsdataio_nfl_injuries, mfl_injuries) or any exclusions.

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