sportsdataio_nfl_injuries

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds valuable context by disclosing the return shape (even if unverified), explicitly warning that the shape is approximate and not yet confirmed against a live response, and specifying the auth key requirement. These are behavioral details beyond the structured annotations and genuinely help the agent know what to expect.

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 not bloated. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then provides the return shape, a caveat about that shape, a concrete example, and the auth requirement. The information is ordered logically and every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly tighter by moving the auth line earlier, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It lists the return fields, gives an example, and notes the auth requirements. It does not cover potential errors, pagination, or the exact interpretation of 'week' (e.g., regular season vs playoff weeks), but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the provided context. The caveat about the unverified shape adds important practical context.

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 already describes both parameters ('Week number. Required — part of the URL path.' and 'Season. Required — part of the URL path.'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds an example ({'season': '2023', 'week': 1}) but does not elaborate on format constraints (e.g., whether season is a four-digit year or something else) or edge cases. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage with minimal additional 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 tool returns an NFL injury report for a given week, naming the resource (injuries) and the temporal scope. It lists the expected fields, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling injury tools like mfl_injuries or mysportsfeeds_injuries, so it misses the last step of disambiguation.

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 an example call with season and week, and notes the auth key requirement, but it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple other injury endpoints in the sibling list (e.g., mfl_injuries, mysportsfeeds_injuries) and no guidance on how to choose among them. The usage guidance is limited to a single example, with no exclusions or context about preferred scenarios.

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