mysportsfeeds_injuries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: return shape from vendor docs is unverified, own API key required, no season segment exists. This caveat prevents the agent from relying on unverified field names, which is significant transparency.

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 with a one-sentence summary, return shape, caveat, example, auth, and alternatives. Every section carries information, but the 'Also answers this' phrasing is slightly cryptic and the caveat is repeated across two sentences, adding minor redundancy.

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 list tool with 3 params (1 required), no output schema, and annotations present, the description is complete: it gives expected shape, example input, auth requirements, time-scope limitation, and alternative tool mappings. An agent has enough to safely select and invoke it.

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 100% — league, team, and player are each described in the schema. The description adds an example ('league': 'nba') and notes league is part of the URL path, but this mostly restates schema info. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence 'Current injury list for a league' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (injuries) with clear scope. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on injuries, and the 'Also answers this' line explicitly maps to related tools (espn_site_call, espnfantasy_player_info, sportsdataio_nfl_injuries), showing how it differs.

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?

Provides clear context: it is for current injuries only ('no season segment — always now'), and lists alternative tools it can replace. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., sportsdataio_nfl_injuries) over this one, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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