Weekly scoreboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: future weeks return zero scores. It does not add much further context such as response format or data freshness, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, the future-week behavior is stated succinctly, and the sibling alternative is named in one clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only tool with no required parameters and a 100%-covered schema. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned content (team names, scores, playoff flag), covers the one edge case an agent might worry about (future weeks), and points to the correct sibling for per-player detail.

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%, so all three parameters (week, year, leagueId) are already documented with types, ranges, and defaults. The description only refers to 'a week' generically and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: get head-to-head scores for a week, and enumerates the returned fields (home/away team names, scores, playoff flag). It is clear about what the tool does, though it only explicitly differentiates from get_box_scores, not from the similarly named get_matchups sibling.

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 clear usage condition: it is safe for future weeks where scores will be zero, and it explicitly routes per-player detail to get_box_scores instead. It does not discuss other alternatives like get_matchups, but the provided guidance is concrete and actionable.

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