get_injuries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds that the data is 'live' telemetry, which usefully signals freshness expectations, but says nothing about latency, caching, or coverage (all clubs vs. a subset). With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate rather than rich.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, followed by the filtering constraint. Nothing is redundant and no sentence fails to earn 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete, and by enumerating injury telemetry, chance-of-playing percentages, and manager quotes it effectively stands in for the missing output schema. The only gap is the absence of any statement about data freshness/scope or how it relates to lineup-based siblings.

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% and the single optional 'club' parameter is documented in the schema with the same examples ('arsenal', 'chelsea'). The description's 'can optionally be filtered by club' matches the schema without adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies — though it is a small credit that the optionality is restated at the top level for quick scanning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve live Premier League injury telemetry') and enumerates the concrete content returned: medical room updates, chance of playing percentages, and press conference manager quotes. No sibling tool covers injuries, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from get_predicted_lineup, get_all_lineups, and the FPL tools.

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 only implied: the agent must infer that this is the tool for injury/news lookups while lineups and fixtures live elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative or exclusion (e.g. whether chance-of-playing percentages overlap with get_predicted_lineup or get_fpl_picks).

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