sportsdataio_nfl_injuries

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only behavior is established. The description adds important beyond-annotations context: authentication requires a user-supplied key (SPORTSDATAIO_NFL_KEY, etc.), and the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, alerting the agent to potential inaccuracies.

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 compact and well-organized, starting with the purpose, then the return shape, a verification caveat, an example, authentication requirements, and alternative tools. Each section is short and relevant, though the 'Also answers this' line could be phrased more clearly.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters, the description covers the essential context: purpose, output shape, example, auth needs, and alternative tools. The caveat about unverified shape is a valuable addition. It does not include explicit usage exclusions, but for this low-complexity tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both required parameters (season and week), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description offers only an example invocation using season '2023' and week 1, which illustrates usage but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'NFL injury report for a week,' identifying the specific verb (report), resource (injuries), and scope (NFL, week). It also lists the expected return fields, reinforcing the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like mysportsfeeds_injuries, though it mentions alternatives.

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 provides clear context: this tool should be used for NFL injury reports by week. It also notes that 'Also answers this: espn_site_call, espnfantasy_player_info, mysportsfeeds_injuries,' indicating alternative tools that can answer the same query. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on when to prefer this tool over those alternatives.

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