injuries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, combining filters, result volume, pagination, or what an unfiltered call returns. Only the resource itself is disclosed.

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?

It is a single terse phrase with no wasted words, but it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. There is no front-loaded verb or scope statement.

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?

A five-parameter, all-optional tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than one line: filter combination behavior, empty-argument behavior, and result shape are all unaddressed.

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 80%, so the schema already documents team, league, season, and fixture, and the description merely restates the same filter list. It adds no format hints (e.g., date string format) or rules on whether multiple filters are ANDed.

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 fragment names the resource (injuries) and the dimensions it can be sliced by (league/season, team, fixture, date), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like team_stats or fixtures. It never states a verb such as 'retrieve' or 'list', so the operation is only implied.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over team_stats, player_stats, or fixtures, nor any note about what happens when no filters are supplied. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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