get_player_week_stats_and_projections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: outputs are raw, un-scored statistics and projections. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but for a read-only tool the added context is valuable.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the important qualifier about league scoring is front-loaded. Every word 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?

For a tool with four parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not clarify the expected format for player_ids or season, the meaning of week, or the effect of season_type, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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%, and the description does not explain player_ids, season, week, or season_type. The text adds no meaning beyond the parameter names already visible in the schema, so the description completely fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('raw actual statistics and projections'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_week_projections by noting that no league scoring is applied. The scope is immediately understandable.

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 implies when to use the tool ('raw' and 'no league scoring is applied'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as get_week_projections, nor does it provide exclusions. The usage context is clear but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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