Get NFL injury report for your MFL players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful conditional defaults (scope defaults to 'mine' when a franchise is configured, week omitted = latest) but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or result size.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; every line carries information. Slight redundancy with the schema descriptions, but nothing is wasted and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, injury details, expected return) and the two response formats. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only report tool, though output shape and pagination limits are not spelled out.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the scope parameter beyond the schema's terse 'mine (default if configured), league, or all' by explaining what each mode returns (own roster vs. every rostered player with fantasy owner vs. entire NFL report). Week and response_format are only echoed from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the NFL injury report') and immediately scopes it ('filtered to the players you care about'), which cleanly separates it from roster, standings, and player-lookup siblings. The parenthetical listing of status values (Out/Doubtful/Questionable/IR) further pins down what the resource contains.

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 scope arg is effectively a when-to-use guide: 'mine' = your roster, 'league' = every rostered player with owner, 'all' = entire NFL report, plus the conditional default. It gives clear context for each mode but never names an alternative sibling tool or states when not to call this.

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