usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: it defines each returned metric semantically and notes that only completed weeks are shown. However it omits data freshness/lag, scope of the underlying data source, and whether results are scoped to the authenticated user's league.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the arg list is compact. The middle paragraph explaining the three shares is jargon-dense but earns its place by defining non-obvious metric names; it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the metric definitions usefully interpret what that schema returns. All three parameters are documented despite 0% schema coverage. Missing only operational details like data recency and error/empty behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: player_name accepts full or partial names, weeks counts completed weeks with a default of 5, and season takes a past-year string like '2025' defaulting to the current season. Minor gaps remain (no bounds on weeks, no handling of invalid seasons), so not a full 5.

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 states specifically what the tool returns: week-by-week snap share, target share, and opportunity share for one player, and clarifies the intent ('is he getting more work?'). It does not name or contrast any sibling tool (player_history, player_outlook, trending), so differentiation relies on the reader's inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it positions itself against scoring-focused questions ('rather than did he score?'), which hints at when to prefer it over box-score tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings.

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